Chinese Communists call for Common Prosperity

[JohnTheMarxist]

China: CP calls for ‘common prosperity’

At its recent Central Committee meeting, the Communist Party of China said the new Five Year Plan starting in 2006 will emphasize “common prosperity” in an effort to bridge the growing gap between rich and poor.

The new plan will define economic growth as “Serving the people to improve life quality.” Among its goals will be increasing urban job opportunities, keeping prices stable and improving housing, transportation, education, culture, health and the environment.

Special attention will be given rural areas, where medical care and welfare are extremely weak. Before 2010, all rural children will have nine years of free education, lifting a significant financial burden from their families.

“Further progress will be made in democracy and rule of law and spiritual civilization, social security and safe production, as well as building a harmonious society,” said the CPC’s publication, People’s Daily.


-----------------
I think this move should be aplauded. The Chinese are playing a good role int he world although they are deeply flawed. They are begining to devlop democracy at home..they have lifted 376 million people out of abstract poverty and abolished all debt from Africa...the only country to do sucha thing. The also are consistantly a voice for developing nations at the WTO. Because of reforms their State owned industry is finally making a profit instead of record losses since the 70's.

On the Downside the gap between rich and poor is huge and corruption is rampant. The party cannot get many corrupt capitlaists to pay taxes and social unrest is escalating. Also, American businesses are bringing in more capital than the State Owned Industries, but hopefully with the new reform of state owned industry they will become more competitive. Next year a state owned Chinese car company is supposed to start selling cars in the US for 3,000 dollars.

[wet blanket]

:lol: THREE CHEERS FOR STATE-CAPITALISM AND AUTHORITARIAN BUREAUCRACY!


Next year a state owned Chinese car company is supposed to start selling cars in the US for 3,000 dollars.
Meanwhile the workers building those cars will still be slaves to the state, completely alienated from the products their labor.

[bolshevik butcher]

Yeh, it sounds like retoric anyway, they've been declaring themselves for the people since maos day and not done mutch.

[ComradeOm]

The odds for massive political and civil unrest in China in the coming years? Watch this space...

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Lots. There were 80,000 protests in China this year. 80,000!!!

[Tekun]

China's nothing but capitalism disguised in red
Whenever u have that much of gap between the poor and the rich, you're going against everything thats Marxist

I've seen documentaries in which some ppl live like kings
And the farmers can't even feed their kids
Plus, China looks like NYC
How the hell are they gonna call themselves socialist?

[KC]

Lots. There were 80,000 protests in China this year. 80,000!!!

Where'd you get that fact from?

[councilcommie]

Applaud china??? yeah, i do think that pulling poeple otu of poverty is important, but the way they have done it is not good. Every since the cultural revolution, china has been devising new great schemes to help the working man. well i for one dont buy it.

[DisIllusion]

As usual, China started out with a good healthy revolution with the right intentions. But of course, those who led the revolution wanted to keep their power and eventually bent it into their own ideals which usually end up far from true Socialism or Marxism. Plus, they became power-hungry bastards like the Soviet bloc became, invading or trying to invade neighboring countries. The only reason I am against their consolidation is because I am a native of Taiwan, where as soon as you're born, you have to hate the Red Army 40 miles away. But i'm open-minded.

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 12:56 AM
As usual, China started out with a good healthy revolution with the right intentions.
:lol:

[Tekun]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 12:56 AM
As usual, China started out with a good healthy revolution with the right intentions. But of course, those who led the revolution wanted to keep their power and eventually bent it into their own ideals which usually end up far from true Socialism or Marxism. Plus, they became power-hungry bastards like the Soviet bloc became, invading or trying to invade neighboring countries. The only reason I am against their consolidation is because I am a native of Taiwan, where as soon as you're born, you have to hate the Red Army 40 miles away. But i'm open-minded.
I'll take your word for it bro

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 12:56 AM
As usual, China started out with a good healthy revolution with the right intentions. But of course, those who led the revolution wanted to keep their power and eventually bent it into their own ideals which usually end up far from true Socialism or Marxism. Plus, they became power-hungry bastards like the Soviet bloc became, invading or trying to invade neighboring countries. The only reason I am against their consolidation is because I am a native of Taiwan, where as soon as you're born, you have to hate the Red Army 40 miles away. But i'm open-minded.
Sorry, but from the start the so called reovlution in china was effectivley a civil wat between two sides, one 'red' and one nationalists. When the 'reds' went into shanghai, the bigges bastion of socialism in china, they were greeted by striking workers, who they promptley had executed.

[councilcommie]

the chinese revolution was a bourgois revolution from the very start

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 01:50 PM
the chinese revolution was a bourgois revolution from the very start
What? No it wasn't. It may not have been a proletarian revolution but it certainly wasn't bourgeois. The middle/capitalist classes have only existed in any numbers in China in the past 20 years or so. The Chinese revolution was fought by peasants fighting under the banner of the proletariat.

[viva le revolution]

No need to be overly critical of the Chinese, nor of Mao's intentions. If so state your case, smileys and one-iners are a stupid way of proving your point. Anyways it has to be seen where this policy will lead.
Communism is not a romantic concept with utopia or paradise on earth, something that many have yet to learn. it is socio-economic transition of society with foundations in reality not an idealistic mission. Arguements should be made with realtion to facts, and should be made with a clear analytic head, not with sloganeering and romanticism. Refute the other side wioth arguements of reason, not with infantile stubornness. As for the Chinese this is a step in the right direction, what becomes of it, history will tell. So far as this step is concerned, it has my support. To dismiss the chinese revolution and rescind your support from any progressive actions or future developments is infantile at best. As communists make every situation work, don't hide yourself into ideological isolation, that is sure way of defeat.

[councilcommie]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Oct 22 2005, 02:18 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Oct 22 2005, 02:18 PM)
[email protected] 22 2005, 01:50 PM
the chinese revolution was a bourgois revolution from the very start
What? No it wasn't. It may not have been a proletarian revolution but it certainly wasn't bourgeois. The middle/capitalist classes have only existed in any numbers in China in the past 20 years or so. The Chinese revolution was fought by peasants fighting under the banner of the proletariat. [/b]
The proletariat were the fighters, and they thought they were fighting for the proletaroat, but the leaders of the 'revolution' had the full intention of becoming the new bourgois in china.

[enigma2517]

Boo

China

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 02:55 PM

The proletariat were the fighters, and they thought they were fighting for the proletaroat, but the leaders of the 'revolution' had the full intention of becoming the new bourgois in china.
Actually the fighters were the peasants. The leadership was proletarian. Mao himself was from a peasant familiy but moved to the city. The leadership of the communist party of china was prolatarian-oriented, but enforced by the peasantry.
By what line of reasoning did you reach this conclusion? How so?

[ComradeOm]

The proletariat were the fighters, and they thought they were fighting for the proletaroat, but the leaders of the 'revolution' had the full intention of becoming the new bourgois in china.
I’d classify the leadership as more of bureaucratic class than bourgeois. Very similar to the governance of Stalin. But that’s a matter of language, I fully agree with you on Mao’s so called revolution. Worse than Stalin without any of the former's, few, saving graces.

[bolshevik butcher]

yeh, i think that's what he was getting at. That it wasn't a protaletarian lead reovlutin like 1917 or the paris commune. Most of the fighters were actually peasants as opposed to protaletarians as well. But it was lead by the beauracracy of the communist party.