Communist Party Elders Call for Ending Censorship in China

[Bud Struggle]

It seems even the former Communist Party officials see that free speech should be allowed in China.

Communist party elders call for ending censorship in China

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/10/13/101976/chinese-communist-party-elders.html#ixzz12H7qIsGJ (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/10/13/101976/chinese-communist-party-elders.html#ixzz12H7qIsGJ)

BEIJING — Almost two dozen former Chinese Communist Party officials and academics have signed a petition demanding that government censorship in China be dismantled in favor of the freedom-of-speech rights enshrined in the national constitution.

The open Internet letter surfaced just days after jailed Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo won the Nobel Peace Prize and shortly before the ruling Communist Party’s central committee convenes for meetings that some observers expect to include discussion of political reform.

“We hope they will take action,” said Zhong Peizhang, a signatory who headed the news bureau of the government’s Central Propaganda Department from 1982 to 1986. “As it says in the letter: to cancel censorship in favor of a system of legal responsibility.”

Speaking of the years since he was in the propaganda department, Zhong said, “I had hoped there would be some progress in terms of freedom of speech.”

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/10/13/101976/chinese-communist-party-elders.html

[Kiev Communard]

It seems even the former Communist Party officials see that free speech should be allowed in China.

Communist party elders call for ending censorship in China

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/10/13/101976/chinese-communist-party-elders.html#ixzz12H7qIsGJ (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/10/13/101976/chinese-communist-party-elders.html#ixzz12H7qIsGJ)

BEIJING — Almost two dozen former Chinese Communist Party officials and academics have signed a petition demanding that government censorship in China be dismantled in favor of the freedom-of-speech rights enshrined in the national constitution.

The open Internet letter surfaced just days after jailed Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo won the Nobel Peace Prize and shortly before the ruling Communist Party’s central committee convenes for meetings that some observers expect to include discussion of political reform.

“We hope they will take action,” said Zhong Peizhang, a signatory who headed the news bureau of the government’s Central Propaganda Department from 1982 to 1986. “As it says in the letter: to cancel censorship in favor of a system of legal responsibility.”

Speaking of the years since he was in the propaganda department, Zhong said, “I had hoped there would be some progress in terms of freedom of speech.”

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/10/13/101976/chinese-communist-party-elders.html


Well, judging from our post-Soviet experience, this "freedom of speech" would still be limited - this time to right-wing liberal / nationalist propagandists, so I would not place much hope on this development.

[RGacky3]

If a "freedom" comes top down, be very very suspicious of it, I'm not saying its a bad thing, but considering the Communist party at this point does'nt HAVE to do this, there must be a reason for it that benefits them. As was said, its probably gonna be free only in a way that benefits them, but who knows.

[Queercommie Girl]

If a "freedom" comes top down, be very very suspicious of it, I'm not saying its a bad thing, but considering the Communist party at this point does'nt HAVE to do this, there must be a reason for it that benefits them. As was said, its probably gonna be free only in a way that benefits them, but who knows.

The reason is very clear: Whenever there is promotion of top-down or elitest "freedom", it's always an excuse to increase the amount of privatisation in the country's economy.

It's the same as the kind of elitest "democracy" that Liu Xiaobo is calling, except this time it's from the "Liu Xiaobos" within the ruling bloc. (See my signature)

[RGacky3]

The reason is very clear: Whenever there is promotion of top-down or elitest "freedom", it's always an excuse to increase the amount of privatisation in the country's economy.



Its freedom of speach. Its not so-called economic freedom.

[Queercommie Girl]

Its freedom of speach. Its not so-called economic freedom.

But it's still an excuse to open the way for more capitalist-style economic "freedom" in China.

Why do you think Liu Xiaobo even mentioned the word "freedom"? Do you really think a right-wing scumbag like him really cares about freedom for the masses?

Interesting thing for you to note: Despite sitting in a Chinese prison, Liu Xiaobo has actually written an article directly praising the revisionist bureaucrat Wen Jiabao for talking about the promotion of freedom and democracy. (Capitalist-style of course without a single piece of reference to class or class struggle)

[RGacky3]

But it's still an excuse to open the way for more capitalist-style economic "freedom" in China.


How? The only way I can think of is a citizens united type situation, but considering the political situation in China thats not really a problem.


Why do you think Liu Xiaobo even mentioned the word "freedom"? Do you really think a right-wing scumbag like him really cares about freedom for the masses?


No, I don't think he does, but I don't know what internal pressure there is.

[Queercommie Girl]

How? The only way I can think of is a citizens united type situation, but considering the political situation in China thats not really a problem.


Because in the Chinese cultural context any discussion involving "freedom (without class consciousness)", "democracy" and "universal values" is always linked to the idea that China should learn from and become more like the Western market capitalist democracies, in terms of "free speech, free association" etc, so it just opens the way ideologically for greater liberalisation of the market.

[Ovi]

Freedom of speech is bourgeois.

[Queercommie Girl]

Should workers have no freedom of speech? Such as the right the criticise the party leadership? :confused:

[Lt. Ferret]

if the workers start saying whatever they want then they might start having all SORTS of crazy ideas. :laugh:

[Ovi]

Should workers have no freedom of speech? Such as the right the criticise the party leadership? :confused:
I was just repeating what many other revleft socialists say about freedom of speech. I don't think anything good can ever result out of censorship; the only thing it leads to is an establishment of a dictatorial regime over the people.

[Bud Struggle]

Because in the Chinese cultural context any discussion involving "freedom (without class consciousness)", "democracy" and "universal values" is always linked to the idea that China should learn from and become more like the Western market capitalist democracies, in terms of "free speech, free association" etc, so it just opens the way ideologically for greater liberalisation of the market.

You don't seem to trust the Communist program. If Communism IS BETTER than shouldn't people rationally gravitate to its way of thinking all by themselves without mind control?

Just let the people do and say what they want and Communism would be the natural choice, don't you think?

[RGacky3]

You don't seem to trust the Communist program. If Communism IS BETTER than shouldn't people rationally gravitate to its way of thinking all by themselves without mind control?

Just let the people do and say what they want and Communism would be the natural choice, don't you think?

Sure, but I personally don't think this is what China is doing, I think union busting will continue, I think resistance groups will e persicuted, I think autonomy groups will be persicuted as well, I think more likely what this is, is allowing more billboards, and gettin in more revenue from foreign media companies.

I would be VERY VERY suprised if this "freedom" included freedom for workers groups.

[Bud Struggle]

Sure, but I personally don't think this is what China is doing, I think union busting will continue, I think resistance groups will e persicuted, I think autonomy groups will be persicuted as well, I think more likely what this is, is allowing more billboards, and gettin in more revenue from foreign media companies.

I would be VERY VERY suprised if this "freedom" included freedom for workers groups.

There won't be any freedom.

[RGacky3]

Thats what I'm guessing, at least not yet.

[B0LSHEVIK]

Well theoretically, free speech is great. But if the powers to be dont listen, and continue to carry out their own plans (think US, all the time). Then what the fuck is the point of having the right to protest (we dont), or of speech? Besides the US supreme court already said that $$$ is free speech. So, some of us already have more 'free $peech' than others.

What does this have to with China? Its the same scenario. Bureaucracies giving some faux freedom.

[RGacky3]

Besides the US supreme court already said that $$$ is free speech. So, some of us already have more 'free $peech' than others.

What does this have to with China? Its the same scenario. Bureaucracies giving some faux freedom.

Like I said, a citizens united situation is impossible right now in China.

[Kiev Communard]

You don't seem to trust the Communist program. If Communism IS BETTER than shouldn't people rationally gravitate to its way of thinking all by themselves without mind control?

Just let the people do and say what they want and Communism would be the natural choice, don't you think?

But the choice in China is currently not between "Communism" and "freedom", it is a choice (yet) between two models of capitalism: pro-Western laissez faire and state-coordinated monopolistic capitalism of modern Chinese rulers.

[Bud Struggle]

But the choice in China is currently not between "Communism" and "freedom", it is a choice (yet) between two models of capitalism: pro-Western laissez faire and state-coordinated monopolistic capitalism of modern Chinese rulers.

That's true ECONOMICALLY. But politically the choice is between free speech democracy and non free speech post Maoist Communism.

[Queercommie Girl]

But the choice in China is currently not between "Communism" and "freedom", it is a choice (yet) between two models of capitalism: pro-Western laissez faire and state-coordinated monopolistic capitalism of modern Chinese rulers.

Which is why we need a third choice.

[Queercommie Girl]

That's true ECONOMICALLY. But politically the choice is between free speech democracy and non free speech post Maoist Communism.

It's impossible to divorce economics from politics like this.

[Lt. Ferret]

you cant have maoism unless they send you to labor camps for criticizing the corrupt officials?

[Bud Struggle]

It's impossible to divorce economics from politics like this.

Sure could. Singapore have a lovely Capitalist economy, So does the US, so does Monaco--each with vastly different degrees of Democracy. Unfortunately the Communist model never got beyond the Glorious Leader syndrome. It would seriously get more traction in the real world if it did.

[RGacky3]

That's true ECONOMICALLY. But politically the choice is between free speech democracy and non free speech post Maoist Communism.

Its not that simple, democracy is'nt on the table, what the choice is, is some sort of free speach (I don't know what the exact proposal is) and the status quo, but unless the free speach is one that actually gives the regular population a voice, its nothing but catering to power. But we'll have to wait and see.

BTW, these are FORMER communist party members, which gives me a little bit of hope that they are sincere (you'll notice people out of power are much more reasonable once they get out of power :P). As far as the government taking it, unless its as a responce to their hand being forced, I doubt it would be giving the public a voice.


Sure could. Singapore have a lovely Capitalist economy, So does the US, so does Monaco--each with vastly different degrees of Democracy. Unfortunately the Communist model never got beyond the Glorious Leader syndrome. It would seriously get more traction in the real world if it did.

Not really, your right they all have different levels of public control (democracy) and freedom, however ultimately its up to the ruling class.

For example free speach in a Capitalist country is VASTLY different from free speach in a more socialist country, when you take money out of it its actually free speach, i.e. people with ideas, in the Capitalist context you have a citizens united situation, i.e. monied interests drowning everything out, and monopolizing speach.

So its not so clear cut, for example in China they could say they are allowing more free speach, and then just rent out public space for billboards, but is that ACTUALLY free speach?

OR they could protect workers right to organize, open up the internet, and give more automoy to local governments (where the local people have more say), which would have the effect of giving people more free speach.

So not all "free speach" is made equal.

[Kiev Communard]

Sure could. Singapore have a lovely Capitalist economy.

Well, the political model of Singapore is pretty much authoritarian and repressive, just as with South Korea and Taiwan during the heyday of their respective "economic miracles"...

[Queercommie Girl]

Sure could. Singapore have a lovely Capitalist economy,


Singapore is an authoritarian Confucian-style capitalist state where people suffer from over-work and homosexuality is still legally not allowed.

You go there if you want, it's not my idea of a "progressive state" at all.

[Bud Struggle]

Singapore is an authoritarian Confucian-style capitalist state where people suffer from over-work and homosexuality is still legally not allowed.

You go there if you want, it's not my idea of a "progressive state" at all.

That wasn't my point. I was just saying that both Capitalist and Socialist economic systems can and do have different degrees of freedom and democracy.

And yes, Singapore is one of the bad ones.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well, China at least learned its lesson and is now going down the path of innovation and entrepreneurship. Look how prosperous it's become since the death of the "great leader."

"Prosperous" for the fatcat "princelings" who got rich not through innovation but through their opportunistic selling-out of the public sector economy in China, but literal death for the workers at Foxconn driven to suicide by their semi-fascist capitalist bosses.

And complete destruction for the entire family of radical trade union activist Zhao Dongmin, who gave up everything to fight against the corrupt local government in order to promote worker's rights in China.

Really shows whose class interests you promote.

[Lt. Ferret]

and killing 50 million people to secure the revolution is better than a few companies that obviously need to be fixed in china?

[Queercommie Girl]

and killing 50 million people to secure the revolution is better than a few companies that obviously need to be fixed in china?

How many of those "50 million" were actually killed by capitalist and imperialist forces?

[Bud Struggle]

How many of those "50 million" were actually killed by capitalist and imperialist forces?

None. They all committed suicide. :D

[ComradeMan]

China is not really communist, it's state-capitalist.

Free speech is fine, as long you don't shout fire in a crowded theatre.

Freedom of access to information is perhaps a bigger issue but not one that gets talked about so much.

[Queercommie Girl]

China is not really communist, it's state-capitalist.

Free speech is fine, as long you don't shout fire in a crowded theatre.

Freedom of access to information is perhaps a bigger issue but not one that gets talked about so much.

No-one is saying China is "communist" now. Obviously that's ridiculous.

The essential point here is that freedom is not "universal" but has a class basis.

We must ask: whose freedom? Freedom for the capitalists or freedom for the workers? The more freedom capitalists have, the less freedom workers have, so in this sense they are opposed.

[Bud Struggle]

No-one is saying China is "communist" now. Obviously that's ridiculous. You have to look deeper into that Maoist failure--


The essential point here is that freedom is not "universal" but has a class basis. Mao TRIED that and it obviously didn't work. Maybe somehing else?


We must ask: whose freedom? Freedom for the capitalists or freedom for the workers? The more freedom capitalists have, the less freedom workers have, so in this sense they are opposed.Geez it's not that simple. It's not about Capitalist propagananda or Communist propaganda--it's about the individual to see through all of tha t and CHOOSE.

You can see that Communism is just the flip side of Capitalism.

There's something more.

[Lt. Ferret]

How many of those "50 million" were actually killed by capitalist and imperialist forces?

um were mao's butchers capitalists and imperialists?

[Weezer]

Communist Party elders? What is this, a CWI chapter?

[RGacky3]

Mao TRIED that and it obviously didn't work. Maybe somehing else?



What did he try??? If its possible to say one person, or a few people "tried" socialism, then they did'nt, its like saying so-and-so "tried" democracy.

[Queercommie Girl]

um were mao's butchers capitalists and imperialists?

Mao mainly killed capitalists and landlords. If you call that "butchery", I don't care.

Did I ever say that I'm always against murdering people or working class terrorism? No.

[RGacky3]

Mao mainly killed capitalists and landlords. If you call that "butchery", I don't care.


What else would you call it? Let me ask you something, if you were the son of a landlord, and inherited his land, do you too deserve to die?

You need help man.

[Queercommie Girl]

What else would you call it? Let me ask you something, if you were the son of a landlord, and inherited his land, do you too deserve to die?

You need help man.

It depends. If I resisted expropriation, the response might indeed be violent.

Did I ever say we should kill all landlords and capitalists indiscriminately? No. But some would need to be killed.

Revolution is not a dinner party. Whose side are you on, the exploiters or the exploited?

[Lt. Ferret]

why dont we kill whiney unskilled laborers who want my land, eh? :cool:

[Lt. Ferret]

Mao mainly killed capitalists and landlords. If you call that "butchery", I don't care.

Did I ever say that I'm always against murdering people or working class terrorism? No.


your impotent bloodthirst is really cute. your brains splattered on the wall would be cuter though. :wub:

[ComradeMan]

It depends. If I resisted expropriation, the response might indeed be violent.

Did I ever say we should kill all landlords and capitalists indiscriminately? No. But some would need to be killed.

Revolution is not a dinner party. Whose side are you on, the exploiters or the exploited?

You are a bit bloodthirsty of late it seems.

But some would need to be killed? Who? Why?

[RGacky3]

Did I ever say we should kill all landlords and capitalists indiscriminately? No. But some would need to be killed.



Some would NEED to be killed? Why?

You said that you don't consider killing landlords and capitalists (most of them were just people Mao deamed as being anti-worker for whatever reason) to be butchery, and you don't care.

How is a landlord going to resist expropriation wihtout the law on his side? Now in a war yeah, your gonna have to kill people.

But your attitude is just one of "bah, killing capitalists is fine, whatever."

BTW are you saying there were 50 million capitalists and landlords resisting expropriation to the point to where they had no choice but to kill them? If you are, thats pretty crazy. I doubt there even are that many Capitalists.


Revolution is not a dinner party. Whose side are you on, the exploiters or the exploited?

the exploited, but killing people does'nt help them now does it.

You just seam hell bent on justifying murder.