China issues

[Edric O]

Ah, yes. I had forgotten the name of Deng Xiaoping. If I'm not mistaken his political career (as well as his life) was in jeopardy while Mao was in power due to the power struggles within the party.  They were rivals for power at one point and Mao had him stripped of power out of fear of Xiaoping's growing popularity. Later after mao's death Xiaoping reemerged as a leader in the party and introduced his less drastic economic/social policies (aside from other small splinter factions).

Yes, Deng was one of the powerful Party bureaucrats that Mao was trying to remove with his grassroots Cultural Revolution; Deng was never particularly popular with the masses, but he had a significant power base within the Party. Mao succeeded in getting rid of him, but Deng rebuilt his power base a few years after Mao died and eventually took control of the Party. Then he proceeded to slowly introduce capitalism in China while maintaining absolute political power in the Party's hands.

Mao himself soon found out that the poor countries around would be soon becoming jealous of chinese wealth and become hostile in the same way like Chinese to Japanese. Or like chinese peasantry to nobility. Or like he against the Nationalists. And thus it was the same Mao who intervened in Tibet and Korea.

Uh, no. China was neither wealthy nor powerful when it intervened in Tibet and Korea - in fact it was rather weak and poor, since we're talking about the period 1949-1953. The People's Republic had just been established a few years before, and China had just emerged from decades of civil war.

The main goal of his and perhaps of any politician in the communist world was to 1.produce enough that Party can live, 2.produce enough that people can live, 3.ensure the borders. A party serves to preserve a continuous process of changing generations of government, that one may prevent foreign control or bloody revolutions. That is the goal, everything else was just means (ideology, army, education).

Yes, that is a fairly good description of the goals and actions of stalinist governments. Which is why they cannot be called "communist" in any sense of the word.

Existence is an ontological category; justification a legal one. A correct conclusion would be, that the original ideology of Marx isn't the reason, why the Communist Party exists. The fact, that Marx' ideas aren't the reason doesn't mean the Party has no purpose. What is use of PNL in Romania? It is to win a few seats in parliament, not to get Romania into the EU.

Right, of course the Communist Party of China doesn't follow communist ideology and does not exist for communist purposes - at least not any more.

The CPC today exists only for the purpose of promoting the personal interests of its high-ranking members. But what I am saying is that this is a rather dangerous position to be in. What if some of the high-ranking members of the CPC decide their interests are no longer best served by the continued existence of the Party? Or, more importantly, what happens if the Chinese people start questioning the Party's right to govern the country? The CPC can no longer offer them any justification for its hold on power.

The problem of the original communist ideology is, and I repeat it for at least thousandth time, that it doesn't sufficiently reflect the human nature.

Oh please. I refuted that silly argument a long time ago - I even have a link to that topic in my signature. And here's another one: link.

[Kokiri-Mentat]

Edric O, I read your linked thread, and I think you didn't spend enough time on this one idea.

The only thing that communism requires is for people to be intelligent enough to realize that a communal system is in their own interest.

Communism does NOT rely on people sharing their possessions out of the kindness of their hearts. It relies on people sharing their possessions because they know that they will all benefit from it.

Addressing the first sentence, would you argue that most people are lacking the foresight to realize this?  don't underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.  Also, I think kommunism requires that the people have a mutual trust that others are going to obey the communal system the same way your are.  If people aren't convinced that others will work towards the system then why should they do the same?  then if you continue to follow the laws while paranoid of others breaking them you feel like the sucker that's trapped in some hollow ideology. How can someone be expected to trust a stranger?  especially multiple ones?  which is why IMO kommunism so far has only proved effective in small communes and not in major countries.

As soon as someone takes advantage of the kommunist system and they get noticed it will become contagious.  The only way around it is if the kommunist ideology becomes social norm, and breaking that social norm would mean becoming ostracized from your society (on a social level as well as legal).  Not sure how that could be implemented on a large scale w/ out government sponsored propaganda, or unless all the kommunist fanboy people around the world moved to Antarctica and started their own society.

I guess you could start your own country.  The requirements could be to possess a certain level of ability to think logically, and then send all the stupid people to the neighboring capitalist country as punishment.  See which one does better.  could be interesting.

should I have posted this in your old thread Edric O?

[Sneakgab]

''Also, I think kommunism requires that the people have a mutual trust that others are going to obey the communal system the same way your are''

Instead of trust you can have practical assurance. There could always be police to ensure that the system is obeyed. What about the police disobeying the system then? That same question exists for any system. Also, the corruption in the police would be a relatively small price to pay provided that the police do not become so defunct that they can no longer function to the extent of enforcing the communal system.As long as the police do their job. There is also just normal observation that you can take to any height. If people aren't doing their part or what not the people around them will probably start to notice.

''Addressing the first sentence, would you argue that most people are lacking the foresight to realize this?''

I don't about you, but considering the buffoonery and all the clowns running around here in SA, I would say that yes, people are lacking said foresight. That might just be me though.

'' why IMO kommunism so far has only proved effective in small communes and not in major countries.''

Communism has only been tried in small communes under reasonable conditions instead of major countries. For Russia... trying to go from fuedalism to communism shortly after the brunt of WW1 and during WW2 while under constant threat from the superpower that is USA is not what I would call reasonable conditions. As we all know, China is not really a communist country. There are not and never have been many reasonable attempts at true communism.

''As soon as someone takes advantage of the kommunist system and they get noticed it will become contagious.''

Or, society will act and force these people to obey the laws they have put in place as would happen in society/system.

''I guess you could start your own country.  The requirements could be to possess a certain level of ability to think logically, and then send all the stupid people to the neighboring capitalist country as punishment.  See which one does better.  could be interesting.''

If I ever became sufficiently rich, I would probably buy an island or something and start up my ideal society with select candidates in order to illustrate the benefits of said society under conditions which COULD be implementable IF people co-operated. The hope would be that the island would be so prosperous (considering starting capital and population) that others would grow weary of their society/system and either join the growing nation as possible or join movements to implement their own reforms.

To be honest, if you read the whole thread then your issues have already been addressed. Maybe not in the first post though.

[Caid Ivik]

Uh, no. China was neither wealthy nor powerful when it intervened in Tibet and Korea - in fact it was rather weak and poor, since we're talking about the period 1949-1953. The People's Republic had just been established a few years before, and China had just emerged from decades of civil war.

The whole world was after a world war. But Tibet was in material development still in middle ages. Politically, communists tried to consolidate the empire in its pre-revolutionary extent, which was natural and done in the Soviet Union in the same way. Still, even this dalailama needed blessing by Beijing to gain authority, a custom (btw, do they have any idea of "law"?) since 17th century.

Yes, that is a fairly good description of the goals and actions of stalinist governments. Which is why they cannot be called "communist" in any sense of the word.

Right, of course the Communist Party of China doesn't follow communist ideology and does not exist for communist purposes - at least not any more.

The CPC today exists only for the purpose of promoting the personal interests of its high-ranking members. But what I am saying is that this is a rather dangerous position to be in. What if some of the high-ranking members of the CPC decide their interests are no longer best served by the continued existence of the Party? Or, more importantly, what happens if the Chinese people start questioning the Party's right to govern the country? The CPC can no longer offer them any justification for its hold on power.

Let me retain my nominalism...Stalin called his party "communist" too. Thus, communist ideology changed, its purpose changed. And also its means of justification, perhaps people like to have one car per family and it's enough. Our government cannot justify its actions by ideology too, but people don't care as they feel richer than before. Our children will call that communism, Marx will be thought to be a communist as much as Saint-Simon.

Oh please. I refuted that silly argument a long time ago - I even have a link to that topic in my signature. And here's another one: link.

You gave there few skeptical arguments: an equipolence, showing that capitalism isn't based on human nature and that there is no  objective human nature, only opinions about it. There may be some truth in that, but it doesn't refute the "communism doesn't reflect human nature" idea ;)

[Sneakgab]

''Let me retain my nominalism...Stalin called his party "communist" too. Thus, communist ideology changed, its purpose changed''

''Our children will call that communism, Marx will be thought to be a communist as much as Saint-Simon.''

It doesn't matter what anyone decides to call anything. The definition remains and the intended meaning of the word when uttered does not change even if the definition does. Only the meaning matters, the rest is just semantics and miscommunication.

''You gave there few skeptical arguments: an equipolence, showing that capitalism isn't based on human nature and that there is no  objective human nature, only opinions about it. There may be some truth in that, but it doesn't refute the "communism doesn't reflect human nature" idea Wink''

It does refute the idea that this possible lack of reflection is a problem though

''The problem of the original communist ideology is, and I repeat it for at least thousandth time, that it doesn't sufficiently reflect the human nature.'' --- Caid Ivik.

''Communism does NOT rely on people sharing their possessions out of the kindness of their hearts. It relies on people sharing their possessions because they know that they will all benefit from it.'' --- From Edrico's link.

So don't complain about the lack of answers to a question you didn't ask. And, that particular question was actually answered anyway through various bits of evidence that Edrico provided to the effect that if humans have any nature one would imagine it would be a socialist one. Whether or not these points are right is besides the point as it does provide an argument against the idea of communism not reflecting human nature despite your claim that he did not post anything to refute this.

[Caid Ivik]

Isn't that kind of a static view of language? Do you think that politological terms are prone to change? For example, do you think that the meaning of "democracy" was same in writings of Aristotle and de Tocqueville? Or "atom" in works of Epicurus and Rutheford? Or I think Tiberium Wars is crappy in comparision to first two C&Cs, so why does it carry the same title? Do the 19th century definitions have some special position in contrast to those of 21th century? The fact I use a word in a present (non-fundamental) meaning doesn't mean I'm not aware of the fundament; and the same I would expect too from those, who prefer the original meaning of the term, that they will be aware of the historical (and linguist, and politological) development.

Why do we associate same words with different things? Mighty question, to which I answer that language isn't perfect. What we can do is to perceive and analyze the causes, why the Communist Party calls itself so despite it contradicts our criteria and why we can't adapt some alternative mark (like Maoist Party, Gongchandang, or whatever).

[Kokiri-Mentat]

I suppose because that's what they insist on calling themselves. the communist party of china.  it's up to them i suppose.  but most i think agree they are not kommunist by Marx's standards.

[Sneakgab]

The latest definition carries the import. Of course, when considering the meaning of the word we have to take into account the intended meaning and the official definition of the day. However, if WE are going to speak, then we may as well use the exact definitions as agreed upon in the dictionary OR as stated specificly and explicitly by our selves. Regardless, the main point is that it is not the word that matters. That is just a symbol. It is the actual intended meaning that is important. So our children will call some arbitrary non-communist person communist as the word deforms in common knowledge? Who cares. They can call him communist with this ''new meaning'' of the word so long as they know he is not communist as defined by todays terminology. Eg: If the word communist was not defined today as it was in the time of Marx, then looking at the work of Marx I would use his definition when reading his work so that I find the intended meaning. Also, if I knew how everybody else personally defined a word, I would speak to them on the basis of their definitions.

This not being the case however, what better choice do we have than to use the generally agreed upon terms?

___________________________________________________________

In truth it is not that the ideology of a group has changed, only perhaps the truth that definitions have been changed so we can no longer call that group communist. However, since the definition of the word communism has not in fact changed, for somebody to call a non-communist indivual or a Stalinist government communist is senseless. So until the definition of the word changes then Marx is communist and Stalin is not.

Of course, general common use and understanding of the word changes. Around here people seem to think that communist means dictatorship or bad, but in our dictionaries the meaning of the word remains the same.

''he fact I use a word in a present (non-fundamental) meaning doesn't mean I'm not aware of the fundament; and the same I would expect too from those, who prefer the original meaning of the term, that they will be aware of the historical (and linguist, and politological) development.''

Hmmm. Then it seems like you and me are basically in agreement.

Yes, meanings can change but it seems we are both aware of the funadament.

''Let me retain my nominalism...Stalin called his party "communist" too. Thus, communist ideology changed, its purpose changed. And also its means of justification, perhaps people like to have one car per family and it's enough. Our government cannot justify its actions by ideology too, but people don't care as they feel richer than before. Our children will call that communism, Marx will be thought to be a communist as much as Saint-Simon.''

The miscommunication arises from you making it sound like communist ideology ACTUALLY changed. When what you actually mean is that what communist means has changed.

Whether this miscommunication is on my or your part I don't know...:D

I will admit that reading that again I see more what you mean than the first time I read it. Though that very last line doesn't make much sense to me? Prosperity or not why would our children call our new system communism? Maybe because of our social reforms here and there?

[Caid Ivik]

However, if WE are going to speak, then we may as well use the exact definitions as agreed upon in the dictionary OR as stated specificly and explicitly by our selves. Regardless, the main point is that it is not the word that matters. That is just a symbol. It is the actual intended meaning that is important.

Dictionaires are neither exactly describing a meaning of the word nor a common agreement. As an example for a common agreement I would use the cultural pluralism: like coughing without covering mouth isn't commonly accepted in Slovakia, but is in Austria. As well as when a Slovak coughs out a word in Austria, he will try to use their language to be understood. If I were a necromancer and called the spirit of Marx (spectre shall be haunting again...) and debated about the present socioeconomic situation, he may still say that communism is the right cure for the poverty, but if I asked him, what he ment with communism, he will certainly look into the present language (primarily), instruments available to political power, worker behavior and other aspects of culture interesting to him; and so he will be able to make it clear how did he mean it. Or he will be amazed at how he could have forgotten so many interesting aspects. As the idea of resurrecting the Father of Ideology (a similar idea lurks in a little different context in Iran, but that's for another thread) is with present level of science a fantastic one ;)  we can use only interpretations of his works and application of these to the present problems. Experience teaches there may be two distinct, even opposite interpretations of the same thing, when one interpreter proclaims one aspect to be more relevant than elsewhere. And it happens here. On the one hand the chinese interpretation, quite "innovative" one, on the other hand your one, more "fundamental" one. So, the ideology in fact changed - we have (at least) two opposing interpretations. In theory, the intended meaning of Marx didn't change, but we can hardly say in how far it reflects one or another interpretations. My conclusion in previous post was that there will be more interpretations based on present interpretations, with the marxist theory becoming to look too simple: like Democritus' theory of atoms doesn't make him a particle physicist. There will be new problems of society, which will be dealt by new interpretations of Marx, aimed to solve the problem by application of the "essence" of his work. An ideal essence is to be understood as secondary to the physical reality. Thus in a counterstrike we will have to see this application changing the essence (of communism, the communist ideology) as well, when realized.

I'm trying now to stay in understanding of materialist dialectics, the core of Marx' theory, which I can't say I am a master in. So have mercy with me. Hermeneutics would, of course, have another conclusion, but it wouldn't be honest towards Marx to use it ;D  because yes, I agree with the idea of an objective fundament as well.

[Kokiri-Mentat]

In the past, dictionaries merely reflected how the majority of the population use word.  With the rise of academia it seems that now they are slower and more causious to change with the population which claims to use the dialect in question.  that's just my thought i could be way off.

For simplisity sake,could you not just say that a Stalinist is not necessarily a marxist and vise versa?  same with  maoism, or the current Chinese politico regime.  there's also christian communists, anarchist communisism, trotskism.  So really, the word communism standing alone is not very descriptive. there are other words that you can use to convey your thoughts.  I believe Nema and I have already had this conversation on one of Edric O's threads about GDP and "happyness" scale.

It's like saying you're a Christian or a Muslim.  this really could mean a variety of things.  Catholic, protestant, methodist, babtist, Episcopal, etc....

Arguing the politico status of CPC is like argueing the religious status of RFCLDS (reformed fundamentalist church of latter day saints.  did i get that right?)..ex...is poligamy compatible with the old and new testament, is the prophet Smith compatible with the previous two canons?

[Caid Ivik]

Hm yes, but the point is that the mormons find their creed to be as true interpretation of Christ as I find the catholic one to be. It can't be objectively solved.

[Tatar Khan]

The idea rests on the fact that most of human population of the world has only 2 weeks of memory of political events, so 2 weeks after something happened almost everyone has forgotten it.

China is trying to basically tire the resistance out. You put enough of them in jail, beat enough of them and you get the smaller number of people able to protests. Their command hierarchy could also be devastated by arrests. after sometime the protectors will tire out, and will be less than what they started with, so by Olympics they might not be able to organize anything major at all. Because if this was happening during Olympics there could be athletes who would refuse to participate.

As for calculating this, yeah there are people in politics who more or less study on how to organize protests and how to keep momentum going and what damages momentum and how long can it be kept up.

And so we stand on the brink of China's Olympic games but where are the protesters in Tibet and around the world. That protested against China and its Olympic games. They got tired and stopped. People I bet already won't be able to recollect what happened and why there were protests in the first place. The momentum is lost. All is left is to applaud the Chinese government for its political brilliance for triggering (if they did that) the  protests in the right moment so that Olympics won't get interrupted.

[Andrew]

And so we stand on the brink of China's Olympic games but where are the protesters in Tibet and around the world. That protested against China and its Olympic games. They got tired and stopped. People I bet already won't be able to recollect what happened and why there were protests in the first place. The momentum is lost. All is left is to applaud the Chinese government for its political brilliance for triggering (if they did that) the protests in the right moment so that Olympics won't get interrupted.

I completely agree. Having the protests months ago worked perfectly because no one remembers they occured and China was able to find the troublemakers and keep them out of the Olympics.

Anyone hear anything about how Burma is doing after the typhoon?

How about Darfur genocide that has been occurring for years?

[Caid Ivik]

And so we stand on the brink of China's Olympic games but where are the protesters in Tibet and around the world. That protested against China and its Olympic games. They got tired and stopped. People I bet already won't be able to recollect what happened and why there were protests in the first place. The momentum is lost. All is left is to applaud the Chinese government for its political brilliance for triggering (if they did that) the  protests in the right moment so that Olympics won't get interrupted.

Ok, I agree  ;D  Although we can't ignore the role of earthquakes, which changed the overall attitude towards the China just in the time when memories of the tibetan unrests began to fade out.

[Caid Ivik]

Is this a part of the great olympic conspiracy? - http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKSIB41693420080804

[Tatar Khan]

Nah, it just that region is very important to China mostly for oil and natural gas however it is populated by Muslim Chinese and many are not ethnically Chinese (Han Chinese I think the term for ethical Chinese). Given that current government dislikes religions and working with the west it can become a problem for some extremist Muslims or Muslims who were sitting on extremist fence.

[Andrew]

Just saw some news pieces about how the government is destroying houses and making millions homeless so they can develop the land more.

I also liked the part where a woman wanted to talk to the foreign media about losing her child (I think) in the earthquake. Her phone was bugged so when she contacted them for a meeting officials intervened and did not allow the meeting. She later texted the journalists saying she was now under house arrest.

And there were people protesting about their houses being destroyed. At night the demonstration stand disappeared and so did the people involved.

[Tatar Khan]

And so we stand on the brink of China's Olympic games but where are the protesters in Tibet and around the world. That protested against China and its Olympic games. They got tired and stopped. People I bet already won't be able to recollect what happened and why there were protests in the first place. The momentum is lost. All is left is to applaud the Chinese government for its political brilliance for triggering (if they did that) the  protests in the right moment so that Olympics won't get interrupted.

I would like to apologise for the posting on the old topic but the reason is that I think this applies to the discussion that was here a while back.

I theorised that the Tibetan protests before Beijing Olympics were encouraged at a specific moment by the Chinese Government. At the current moment I believe that i was wrong as the protests seem to coincide with the date of the failed uprising of the Tibetans against Chinese and happen every year.

[Andrew]

Those type of things get in the news and last maybe a month and are not heard again for years. You were correct that the media would forget about it after the olympics.

I don't even know what happened to Myanmar after that typhoon hit and the corrupt gov wasn't accepting aid. Did they all die?