<p>what is PLA?</p>
<p>People’s Liberation Army-- the largest governing body of the military.</p>
<p>i haven’t heard anything about that part but then i haven’t really been following closely.</p>
<p>Private watchdog groups IMO are a luxury we can afford.</p>
<p>Make no mistake. I am entirely and proudly and happily American. But, I think unless you’ve been to China a lot in the last two years, and have spent a lot of time with the Chinese as semi-peers, there is a lot you will not understand. </p>
<p>They are in essence redefining Communism. Sure it isn’t what Lenin and Mao thought it was. To say nothing of Mr. Marx. But you could almost say now that Communism is what its most successful advocates say it is. Just you can almost say now that democracy is what America has. Not what the original visionaries imagined.</p>
<p>Alumother,</p>
<p>I’m a grad student at a program focused on China. I do a lot of work on China as well, and I work alongside Chinese, experts on China, and many many people who know a lot more about China than any of us.</p>
<p>Not that I’m saying that they’re right, but I don’t think I’m necessarily ignorant to what goes on in China, and I think that the anecdotal level data doesn’t really tell the whole story. </p>
<p>As for “communism,” China’s as communistic as North Korea is democratic-- in name only. Even many Chinese leaders have admitted that China’s no longer a “communist” state. Holding on to the title is just a semantic game, IMO.</p>
<p>Everyone has a right to their opinion.</p>
<p>Sure, but there’s a point where you look at the numbers and opinion starts giving way to economic reality.</p>
<p>If you’re interested, I can recommend some excellent texts on the subject that are VERY readable.</p>
<p>
But it seems to be at the point where it isn’t communism at all. I’m not referring to whether the government is totalitarian or not - simply to whether it’s actually a practicing communistic society by almost any definition any more. It seems that it isn’t. It now has heaps of billionaires and millionaires. People are seizing private enterprise opportunities that would never have been allowed not many years ago. Foreign corporations feel confident enough in the way the country is run to invest huge sums into that country. The wealth, especially at the individual level, is radically changing that country. People are migrating in swarms to cities seeking opportunities, cities are expanding at a tremendous rate, individuals are consuming goods as never before including big ticket items such as automobiles and major appliances.</p>
<p>The thing is, I can’t give the reasons for my opinions here - there are confidentiality issues. So, as such, it stays an opinion on this forum.</p>
<p>I’ve read a lot of books, but thanks.</p>
<p>But if they say its Communism, and they have a one-party system, and substantial public ownership of substantial productive assets then perhaps it is Communism and it’s evolved. </p>
<p>Do you think America, with its paid political announcements on TV and PACS etc. is the democracy the founders envisioned? But that’s what we call it. And who will say us no?</p>
<p>According to Marxism-Leninism, dictatorship of the proletariat as represented by the communist party as the vanguard is justified because it ensures the development of socialism/communism. In other words, the communism is the goal and communist party is the mean.</p>
<p>In China now the formula is just reversed, a capitalist economy is justified because it ensures the survival of the communist party. Communist party rule is the goal, capitalist economy is the mean.</p>
<p>However it is not ordinary capitalism. The Chinese communist party like to call the pre-1949 economy “bureaucratic capitalism”, by which they mean the family of the governing officials get rich off the economic system. This is what is happening in China these days.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But we have this same exact case in other countries, no? Like I keep saying, many countries CLAIM they have robust democracies (DPRK, Iran, Mexico pre-1990s) yet really don’t. The name and rhetoric is not as important as the actual benchmarks. </p>
<p>America is not what the Founders envisioned, but it’s clearly a democracy according to the internationally accepted standards of “democracy.” China, on the other hand, meets very few of the important benchmarks for “communism.”</p>
<p>I don’t doubt that you have a lot of data, but how much of it is anecdotal? Anecdotal data is not really useful at the aggregate level, which is what we’re attempting to discuss.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>alumother,</p>
<p>i am not sure what you meant by “substantial”; do you mean somewhere like 80%? or even just >50%?</p>
<p>But look at the following:</p>
</p>
<p>another source says public sector accouts for 37% of their GDP. [Green</a> Left - CHINA: Public sector less than 40% of economy](<a href=“http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/734/38026]Green”>http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/734/38026)</p>
<p>as a comparison, what are the numbers for european countries?</p>
<p>Much of the discussion seems to focus on the economic system of China. Communism is more than just an economic system. China’s communist party consists of a group of individuals who make significant decisions affecting a subtantially larger group of people. The Communist party often takes large sections of land for the purpose of the common good. Parents are limited to have one child for the common good. The Communist party decides what information is permissible for the common good. Many Americans hoped that adopting property rights and capitalism would encourage a move away from communist ideology; unfortunately, that has not happened.</p>
<p>Communism is, at its core, an economic phenomenon. What you’re describing sounds more like totalitarianism than any sort of particular economic system.</p>
<p>Actually, it is a form of association among people. Only one of the elements of that assocation is economic principals. Americans view the element of economics as the most important. It is not clear that communists over time have agreed with that ranking.</p>
<p>Communism, at its core, revolves around the means of production. Means of production are, at their core, an economic phenomenon.</p>
<p>What am I missing here that you’re getting?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Brilliant! The perfect way to trump any argument:“I’m right and you’re wrong but confidentiality issues prevent me from presenting any proof.” Why didn’t I think of this? I’ve been needlessly arguing facts and logic all these years when all I needed were “confidentiality issues.”</p>
<p>From Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong Chapter 28, quote 18 about communists:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not suggesting communism does not have a base in economic theory; it clearly does address property ownership and means of production, etc. </p>
<p>What I am saying is that to simplify Chinese communism into an economic theory, misses what communism is really all about – the distribution of power among people in a society. The cultural revolution addressed more than just property and economic theory. A lot of chinese communism resulted from fear of other countries such as Japanese and western perceived and real imperialism.</p>
<p>I don’t really understand the original question? What difference does it make? </p>
<p>We are not a purely capitalistic country, but we call ourselves a capitalistic country. </p>
<p>We’re not really a democratic country either. Every major candidate for president is rich. You can’t play if you are middle class or lower.
We don’t have the same access to our representatives as the wealthy or those that represent large corporations.</p>
<p>As a population, we don’t really know what is going on in the world and why we do what we do. We didn’t know what is going on in Iraq and now it turns out we didn’t know what is going on in Iran. We don’t know what is really happening in the mortgage crisis. Who is involved and how deep. We don’t really choose our leaders. Who chose Paul Wolfowitz for example? Who chose Ben Bernanke? Henry Paulson?
Condi Rice? Who chose these leaders?</p>
<p>If we were really a democractic society, we would have leaders representing socialism, the working class, recent legal immigrants, but we don’t. The people would choose who runs our banks, foreign policy, etc., but we don’t.</p>
<p>Our leaders are all similar. They represent corporations and the wealthy. Our leaders don’t represent the masses. If they did, we would have better public education, health care for all, safe and clean streets, affordable alternative energy, a secure social security system, etc. Who are we kidding?</p>
<p>dstark,</p>
<p>Yet, it’s not like all of our leaders started out rich. How was Clinton rich at birth? Carter? Reagan? Nixon? Ford?</p>
<p>And there’s a good reason we don’t choose all of our leaders: there’s no time to vote them all in. Plus, few people possess the requisite knowledge to vote properly for Chairman of the Fed.</p>