Being a Communist

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by DaShi
Why do people only living outside of China believe this? I've asked many Chinese people here if they think that China will eventually return to communism. Their first answer is usually yes. Then I ask, "Do you really believe that?" Which they reply, "No, not really, but we're supposed to." Seems like the propaganda machine is more effective outside of China than inside.

Last time I checked, I lived in China.

The beliefs of the average person in China is not reflective of what government officials believe for the simple reason that government officials are far more educated then the average person. This is a country where the average income is still about US$1 a day. The vast majority of the 1 billion Chinese have only basic schooling. They cannot be compared to the ruling elite.

People outside of China tend to think that China is embracing no-holds capitalism. It's not. For the past 25 years the Chinese economy has undergone a controlled move to limited free market and it will continue to remain that way.

People laugh at the idea of a long-term goals, but look at the Chinese government's policies and you will see that this is the case.

Back around 1980, the Chinese communists realised that their economic system wasn't producing strong enough results. Why? Because they tried to skip the capitalist stage of economic development.

Marx argued that workers would eventually say why do we need capitalists when we can do the work ourselves. But that only can occur when the workers have the expertise to run a business. Obviously, the peasants didn't have that knowledge.

The only way to develop that worker knowledge is to allow capitalism to develop. The Chinese government has done that, but on a carefully controlled level.

When education levels and working knowledge have reached a critical mass, communism can then be achieved.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Last time I checked, I lived in China.

Well, now you know better

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Arrian
The same tune has been sung for quite a while now (since Marx wrote about it, in fact).

The thing is, "capitalist" societies have adapted, making compromises with socialism that have brought a measure of stability to the system. So the system Marx wrote about has evolved some. Given that, it is certainly reasonable to ask whether his analysis is still applicable (and that's even assuming it was applicable in the first place, which we capitalist pig dogs do not concede ).

-Arrian

Fortunately for communists, capitalists have forgotten why those compromises were made and want to unmake them with all their heart.

Eh. I like the balance.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Smiley
Well, now that its not a threat anymore, Communism is becoming more socially acceptable.

So are zits.

[:) Smiley]

Communism + some capitalism = better development
Capitalism + some communism = more stable society

The two are actually not that far apart.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Smiley
Communism + some capitalism = better development
Capitalism + some communism = more stable society

The two are actually not that far apart.

Neither were the Protestant and Catholic brands of Christianity, but the Thirty Year War was fought nevertheless.

[The Mad Monk]

Re: Re: Being a Communist

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Not so bad. It may be that we will ultimately fail to change the world, in which case I feel sorry for not only our species, but the others as well. The flip side is, our movement has had ebbs and flows. We're in an ebb right now. Doesn't mean we won't flow again.

In 1912, there were 50 members of the Bolshevik organization. Five years later they overthrew the Russian government. In 1952, Castro led an attack on a Cuban police station and was thrown in prison. Seven years later he marched into Havana. In 1927, Mao was being led off to face a firing squad with most of the rest of the leaders of the Communist Party of China. Twenty years later he took over China.

Those kind of stories can help us to "keep the faith" inspite of overwhelming odds.

Well, the lesson from that is clear.

If you want to remove the competition, don't pussyfoot around.

Just kill them.

[:) Smiley]

Interesting thing is that the existing governments in all three cases did actively kill communists. Problem was, much like today in the Mid East with fundamentalists, more get created as a result.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Last time I checked, I lived in China.

I knew I'd have to add mainland China later. You do realize that Hong Kong and mainland China are very different, don't you?

The beliefs of the average person in China is not reflective of what government officials believe for the simple reason that government officials are far more educated then the average person. This is a country where the average income is still about US$1 a day. The vast majority of the 1 billion Chinese have only basic schooling. They cannot be compared to the ruling elite.

Of course! All intellectuals enter politics. Just as every graduate of the best schools in China gets a seat on the ruling counsel. The rest of the Chinese are just ignorant cows waiting for slaughter.

Also, the Chinese government will do what it thinks is best for the party, meaning whatever will keep it in power. If communism doesn't fit this goal, then it won't happen.

People outside of China tend to think that China is embracing no-holds capitalism. It's not. For the past 25 years the Chinese economy has undergone a controlled move to limited free market and it will continue to remain that way.

People laugh at the idea of a long-term goals, but look at the Chinese government's policies and you will see that this is the case.

Have you looked at the policies? Nearly every year China is releasing more to the private sector. Just recently it became possible for private companies to own land.

Back around 1980, the Chinese communists realised that their economic system wasn't producing strong enough results. Why? Because they tried to skip the capitalist stage of economic development.

Marx argued that workers would eventually say why do we need capitalists when we can do the work ourselves. But that only can occur when the workers have the expertise to run a business. Obviously, the peasants didn't have that knowledge.

The only way to develop that worker knowledge is to allow capitalism to develop. The Chinese government has done that, but on a carefully controlled level.

When education levels and working knowledge have reached a critical mass, communism can then be achieved.

No, back in 78, Deng Xiaoping witnessed first hand the disaster that communism had brought to his country and sought a way to remedy it. He realized that communism wasn't appropriate for China. One aspect is that the Chinese actually lack a sense of community with one another. This is usually the biggest complaint that Chinese people have about themselves. Most Chinese don't know the names of their neighbors and rarely socialize with strangers. There isn't really a sense of kinship among Chinese. The only exception, as one of my students pointed out, is when China as a whole is threatened. Then the Chinese will work together to fight their enemy, such as the Japanese. Communism requires this sense community. Communism is people working together to build better lives for everyone. This is not China in any aspect. However, capitalism fits well with the Chinese mindset, which is one reason why it blossomed so quickly here. It's also why the government has been slow to remove restrictions. Unbridled capitalism would tear this country apart.

Anyway, this comes back to my main point. The government will work to improve China because it is its own best interest. Communism has been cruel to China, and I doubt that any leader will put himself on the line to try that experiment again.

[:) Smiley]

Communism does have a steep learning curve. Naturally, the first generation post collectivization for any country is difficult. However, afterwards, when you have people who have grown up under the system, they are more accepting of it. Case in point is Russia, where the Communist Party is still a major, though no longer the only, political party.

[Zevico]

Communism will be the choice of the future.

Christians believe in the Coming of Christ; Communists believe in the Coming of Communism.
I see no difference between the two.

[DaShi]

I believe in communism so much that it doesn't need me to advance. Nothing can stop communism, and anything I do to try to hurt it will have no effect, thus making me free to what I please. That, my friend, is the power of communism.

[:) Smiley]

Christianity never industrialized any nation. Communism at least has some nice side effects.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by DaShi
One aspect is that the Chinese actually lack a sense of community with one another. This is usually the biggest complaint that Chinese people have about themselves. Most Chinese don't know the names of their neighbors and rarely socialize with strangers. There isn't really a sense of kinship among Chinese.

If you really believe that then there is not much point talking to you about China and Chinese people.

[Tingkai]

The question I have is why do people support the existing capitalistic system in the west that is built and maintained for the corporate elite and hereditary rich.

Look at the Americans. They'll have a choice between a guy born into a rich dynasty, educated in Yale, who politics support the rich and a guy born into a rich dynasty, educated in Yale, who politics support the rich.

If you're not a millionaire, why support the Republicans or the Democrats.

Even if the American people elected a president that created policies that benefited the majority, those policies would be blocked by the senate which is composed of the super-rich. The average cost of winning a senate position is US$7 million, compared to $700,000 for a House of Representatives seat.

Who's got the money to finance these political campaigns - the rich.

The so-called free market is really an economic system designed to benefit mega-corporations. They're the ones getting the lion share of government funding.

Meanwhile, small and medium-sized businesses are the ones creating the majority of new jobs.

Information is becoming more and more controlled by mega-corporations like Time-Warner who control smaller corporations down the line.

The workers (blue collar, white collar, whatever) create the profits, but the corporate elite are the ones taking home multi-million dollar salaries, even when they are running a corporation into the ground.

The corporate elite ship good jobs to low-income countries, which means they can get richer while the rest of us get poorer.

Why support this? Why not demand a government that looks after the interests of the majority instead of the pampered rich?