4 ms·

I'd like to point out, that while China has a communist party, it is no longer a communist country.

anamax 15y ago
> I'd like to point out, that while China has a communist party, it is no longer a communist country. What makes China "no longer a communist country"? Can anyone run for office? Are there significant legal and extra-legal controls on "private" property? Every communist country has allowed some private property, so if your answer is "Chinese can now own land/cars", please tell us where the line is on that slippery slope.
- Shenglong 15y ago
  A political theory ... advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. 1. No more class war 2. Property might be "publicly owned", but it's as good as private. 3. There is an absolutely huge disparity in income. My elevator operator got paid 500 RMB/mo, while each one of the random gifts I got for just happening to be close to someone important, was over 2000 RMB. A relative of mine recently bought a large plot of farm land from a bunch of farmers, for a substantial sum of money - much more than its value. He spent a load of money and bought high-end equipment and machines, and hired agricultural specialists to consult on best practices. He started growing high-quality fruits/vegetables purely for family consumption, and as a pass-time. In fact, when he's bored, he just goes to the farm and starts farming. After a while, the farmers realized how much value their land had gained (not due to economic reasons, but because he had invested so heavily in it) and started to complain. The government did absolutely nothing. What I'm trying to emphasize is that class wars are no longer in place, and recognition of private rights are soaring. China, really, is a capitalist state... a capitalism without democracy. Just because not everyone can be a leader, doesn't mean it's a communism. Do you know what happens when anyone can be a leader and run for office? Take Quebec for example. In the most recent Canadian elections, a girl ran for MP (Canadian congress) for lulz, and went to vegas during the election. She did absolutely no campaigning, and came back to find that she had won the seat.
  - anamax 15y ago
    > 3. There is an absolutely huge disparity in income. There was under communism as well - do you really think that the leaders were poor? (You could have argued that only those in govt were rich before. Then I'd have asked how many of the current rich are not "connected".) > their land had gained (not due to economic reasons, but because he had invested so heavily in it) and started to complain. (1) "their land" hadn't gained any value - it wasn't their land after they sold it. (2) investing IS an economic reason for something to go up in value. > The government did absolutely nothing. That happened under communism as well. Is he connected? Are they politically disfavored? > Just because not everyone can be a leader, doesn't mean it's a communism. One of the essential properties of communism is that only the politically reliable are eligible for public office. It's not the only essential property, but it is one of them. > Do you know what happens when anyone can be a leader and run for office? Yes, I do - random people run for office. Sometimes they win. That can't happen in a communist society.
    - Shenglong 15y ago
      I can't debate this with you if the semantics keep changing. The definition of "communism" is defined as "Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate" If you define communism to be like capitalism, then the argument is semantics; if that's the case, I'll concede. investing IS an economic reason for something to go up in value. - I'm aware... I suppose what I implied 'external'... such as land increasing in value several times without action on his part.
      - anamax 15y ago
        > The definition of "communism" is defined as "Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate" You're confusing theory with reality. Since we're starting with the assumption that China was communist in the past, that definition is problematic because it tells us that China was never communist. I assumed that you wanted to use a definition of communism that both Mao-era China and the USSR satisfied at some time. Was I wrong?

> I'd like to point out, that while China has a communist party, it is no longer a communist country. What makes China "no longer a communist country"? Can anyone run for office? Are there significant legal and extra-legal controls on "private" property? Every communist country has allowed some private property, so if your answer is "Chinese can now own land/cars", please tell us where the line is on that slippery slope.

Shenglong 15y ago
A political theory ... advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. 1. No more class war 2. Property might be "publicly owned", but it's as good as private. 3. There is an absolutely huge disparity in income. My elevator operator got paid 500 RMB/mo, while each one of the random gifts I got for just happening to be close to someone important, was over 2000 RMB. A relative of mine recently bought a large plot of farm land from a bunch of farmers, for a substantial sum of money - much more than its value. He spent a load of money and bought high-end equipment and machines, and hired agricultural specialists to consult on best practices. He started growing high-quality fruits/vegetables purely for family consumption, and as a pass-time. In fact, when he's bored, he just goes to the farm and starts farming. After a while, the farmers realized how much value their land had gained (not due to economic reasons, but because he had invested so heavily in it) and started to complain. The government did absolutely nothing. What I'm trying to emphasize is that class wars are no longer in place, and recognition of private rights are soaring. China, really, is a capitalist state... a capitalism without democracy. Just because not everyone can be a leader, doesn't mean it's a communism. Do you know what happens when anyone can be a leader and run for office? Take Quebec for example. In the most recent Canadian elections, a girl ran for MP (Canadian congress) for lulz, and went to vegas during the election. She did absolutely no campaigning, and came back to find that she had won the seat.
- anamax 15y ago
  > 3. There is an absolutely huge disparity in income. There was under communism as well - do you really think that the leaders were poor? (You could have argued that only those in govt were rich before. Then I'd have asked how many of the current rich are not "connected".) > their land had gained (not due to economic reasons, but because he had invested so heavily in it) and started to complain. (1) "their land" hadn't gained any value - it wasn't their land after they sold it. (2) investing IS an economic reason for something to go up in value. > The government did absolutely nothing. That happened under communism as well. Is he connected? Are they politically disfavored? > Just because not everyone can be a leader, doesn't mean it's a communism. One of the essential properties of communism is that only the politically reliable are eligible for public office. It's not the only essential property, but it is one of them. > Do you know what happens when anyone can be a leader and run for office? Yes, I do - random people run for office. Sometimes they win. That can't happen in a communist society.
  - Shenglong 15y ago
    I can't debate this with you if the semantics keep changing. The definition of "communism" is defined as "Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate" If you define communism to be like capitalism, then the argument is semantics; if that's the case, I'll concede. investing IS an economic reason for something to go up in value. - I'm aware... I suppose what I implied 'external'... such as land increasing in value several times without action on his part.
    - anamax 15y ago
      > The definition of "communism" is defined as "Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate" You're confusing theory with reality. Since we're starting with the assumption that China was communist in the past, that definition is problematic because it tells us that China was never communist. I assumed that you wanted to use a definition of communism that both Mao-era China and the USSR satisfied at some time. Was I wrong?