Does China make you sick or what?

[ViktorPravda]

Especially since people use China as their basis for arguement against Communism/Socialism. It makes people who truly belive look just as hypocritical as the tyranny we are fighting against. Good points in your post. Thanks.

[gooddoctor]

i was in beijing for a week in july to visit mao, see socialism first-hand, climb the great wall that sort of thing. it is probably the only world capital where i can wear my mao t-shirt with pride. i happened to meet some english students on the street from xinjiang and one of the first things they asked me was why mao is so demonised in the west, they couldn't figure it out. they knew that mao's policies were questionable, but said that he'd done more good for china than anything and i agreed because i could see it all around me.
true socialism and the political party that i support will always incorporate capitalism to a certain extent because there are areas of the economy which require it's impetus where purely socially lead growth cannot support it. the same thing happens today in capitalist societies where capitalism cannot support socially necessary areas of the economy, health, wealth distribution, education, industry, basically anything that has to do with people's real lives and not retail and commercialism. people hold up the commercial economy as a symbol of the superiority of the capitalist model, but it can exist just as succesfully under socialism like in china.
if people use china as an arguement against socialism then they are just ignorant fucks who don't know any better. let's not forget that china has the fastest growing economy in the world, and their humanitarian problems have nothing to do with socialism but rather the nature of their revolution. do you think that england was a just place after their civil war, or how about post-independance america or former-yugoslavia after the fall of communism? maintaining a revolution is an extremely tricky business and lives are lost after every revolution because the new society is too anarchistic and volatile.
the fact is that all of the people in beijing that i met from taxi drivers, to students, to shop-keepers, to businessmen, to ex-pats were all happy with their lives so don't listen too hard to anti-chinese propaganda in the west because it is based on prejudice and red-scare.

[AgustoSandino]

Thats right, they are happy with their lives, you know why? Because in 1980 Deng Xaioping embraced capitalist market reforms thereby lifting 400 million people out of poverty in a perod of 15 years, and millions more since then. What worked and will continue to work for China is capitalism. And it is this capitalism, with is nurturing of an ever growing middle class, that will bring democracy to China.

[gooddoctor]

what the fuck? are you suggesting, agusto, that capitalism is the economic basis for democracy? your views on this are just as ignorant as your views on the irish question i see. capitailsm is the economic negation of democracy. and let's not forget, that whilst chinese politicians are not as dogmatic as they once were, that doesn't mean that they are outright capitalists. their economy is still based on socialism and the only legal political party is the people's communist party. mao is cannonised there for a reason, because he brought democracy (albeit not on the western model but in the form of socialism) to china.

(Edited by gooddoctor at 9:43 pm on Oct. 12, 2001)

[Jurhael]

Hmm...only ONE legal political party??!! I don't like the sound of that one bit...

[gooddoctor]

yep, it's a doozy.

[AgustoSandino]

Gooddoctor you sound troubled.

Although correlation is not causation, it is hard to deny the overwhelming empirical evidence that capitalism and democracy go hand in hand. Unlike you I don't confuse what democracy or capitalism are. Mao brough democracy to China, if by democracy you mean the killing, forced bondage and reprogramming of political prisoners, well then you're right, but last time I checked we were using the modern definition of deomcracy, and not Plato's definition.
As far as capitalism is concerned, you may not be satisfied with the overwhelming real world evidence that proves that democracy and capitalism go hand in hand, so lets provide a philosophical one. You equate DEMOCRACY with EQUITY, a cursory understanding based on the superficial observation that enfranchisment is ideally universal. On the contrary Deomocary is not about equality, but about choice, it is about choice, in the western sense about choosing who you would like to represent you. If democracy were about actual de facto equality there would be no need for it, because everyones' interests would align. This was the assumption made by states like China and the USSR; they felt that since the Party held everyones' interests there was no need for real democracy.
Now parallel to democracy is capitalism. Capitalism is not about exploitation, there are many admonishments here to read Marx, trust me my friend from the simple stuff like the Manifesto, Das Kapital and on the Jewish question to his Doctoral dissertation: The Difference between the Democritean and the Epicurean Philosophy of Nature, I've read Marx. Now I must admonish you to read Adam Smith, read John Maynard Keynes, read Robert Barro, and HERNANDO DE SOTO'S : THE MYSTERY OF CAPITAL. Understand what capitalism is, understand what globalization does. They are, like democracy, founded on the principles of CHOICE. Having the right to enjoy the fruits of your labor in the way you see fit, not in the way the Party sees fit. Capitalism as it is being proposed today in the form of Free-Trade agreements is not about exploiting resources and people, it is about mutual benefit due to trade. Here read NAFTA:
http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/english/nafta/toc.htm
what is being proposed are freedoms not restrictions. What you see in the third world is not capitalism, it is the result of state controls on the behalf of the beauracracy and the upper class. It is precisely these controls, that you correctly characterize as unjust, that Free-Trade agreements seek to abolish.

So in the end realize this, Capitalism is not the "economic basis" for democracy, whatever that means. Rather it is the only economic system that goes hand in hand with democracy. In a real election, not a chinese one, not everyone wins. But everyone had an equal chance to suceed. This is what free-trade does, it gives people that equal chance. FREE-MARKET CAPITALISM IS ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY.

WHEN China becomes democratic it will be because the middle class has become so large that its interests will have to be represented.

[Moskitto]

My grandad thinks that if a state isn't democratic then it isn't capitalist. I could see someone's viewpoint the other way round but when my grandad says "Arab states aren't democratic so aren't capitalist" like capitalism needs democracy. I think "Nazi Germany, China, Egypt (which he thinks is an Arab state and therefore not democratic)..."

Actually I believe China allows small non-communist parties to form but they're all controlled by the communist party so it doesn't change anything.

[Nickademus]

the only thing i really really want to complain about regarding china is its human rights violations. what china is doing to TIBET is absolutely horrific and i can't support the decision to give china the olympics.

that's my two scents for now

[gooddoctor]

agusto, let's split the word democracy up to find out its true meaning, it's quite simple: demo - people, cracy - rule. there you go, none of that ridiculous mumbo-jumbo that set me yawning so before. that means, by definition, that in a democarcy the interests of the majority of people must be satisfied. you can hardly argue that the control of capital by the minority of capitalists (yes, that is where the term comes from) which essentially alienates the workers from their jobs and renders them mere extentions of the machines or computers they work with is the economic basis of democracy (i'm sorry but that is basically what you're saying). the fruits of workers' labour then goes directly to their bosses who then dole out just enough pocket money to them to prevent revolution. before i began university i worked in a factory so i have seen this happen first-hand. a few democratic freedoms, in other words basic human rights, do not equal a democracy. true democracy is equality, go ahead, ask your primary school history teacher on monday.
i have studied enough smith to understand that his entire philosophy has no basis in real life. keynes' most favourite quote is "the state must intervene in the economy or in the long-run we are all dead", and he was famously opposed to the economic sanctions imposed on the german people by the west at versailles which lead to the rise of the nazis in germany. we are taught all of this in high school economics, alongside the destructive aspects of the imf, world bank, and wto. they are the international agents of western capitalism pure and simple. their task, no matter how you look at it, is to forge links with developing nations to make them more receptive to western mncs. this involves coersion and bribery which force weaker economic forces to concede social reform and protection of domestic markets so that the mncs can exploit their labour markets. marx is my favourite philosopher because his theses are based on real life observations of people and the process of history and not imagined movements of capital.
the freedoms you speak of in nafta by the way are for the mncs, not the workers who are famously oppressed south of the border. read a newspaper for fucks sake.
by the way, i do not pretend to support communism or maoism in anything other than my respect for their socialist aspects. the form of socialism that i am fighting for in scotland is quite different i assure you and many other people think so too. the most recent opinion poll shows that we have 7% support, almost as much as the tories, which you must admit isn't bad for a three year old party based solely on continuous protest with no real propaganda machine.
globalisation breeds poverty, its very mechanisms prevent development and ensures that the rich bloody well stay rich, and the poor, well what do you care...

[SellasieI]

that last part you said is very interesting, its keeping me thinking, and i find that it is true.

[gooddoctor]

agusto, i feel compeled to reeducate you because of your earlier assertion that capitalism gives rise to democracy. this is fundamentally wrong because each and every single isolated democratic right that we enjoy in the west, all of which you profess to be not only equal to a true democracy but to have been brought about by capitalism, have had to be diligently fought for against the interests of capitalism and those in power. this is the case for the universal franchise, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, secular education for all, free helath care, a national minimum wage, public transport, graduated tax, a fairly unbiased (though weighted in the favour of the rich) judicial system. or are you saying that when feudalism was overthrown and replaced by capitalism in the west that we instantly enjoyed all of these democratic rights? i'm afraid we didn't and i would say that each time one of these freedoms was won by progressive people it was an immense blow to the capitalist class and was resisted by them every step of the way. furthermore, the capitalist class has been able to use its vast wealth and power to manipulate and pervert each of these rights in its own favour to consolidate its rule.
take the case of the universal franchise in the uk. it was won by the chartist uprising and the suffragettes in their fight against the government who was protecting its powerful commercial and financial lobbies, which both of these movements were deemed to threaten. it was a long and hard battle with many lives lost and wasted before the victory of progressive peoples which were not fighting side by side with capitalism but were in fact highly oppressed by it.
nowadays, the ruling class has been able to pervert democratic elections in their favour. in the uk, and especially the us, elections are won with money. it doesn't matter what your politics are (most people have become familiar with the idea that politicians are corrupt, lie and do not work in their interests) because if your election campaign is powerful enough, you will win. private finances are needed for election campaigns for ad campaigns, tours, canvassing, lobbying, party political broadcasts, spin doctors and so forth. the party that can attract the most investment, everything else being equal, will win an election. parties attract donors by promising them favours once they are in power. the biggest donors are corporations, therefore they will get the biggest favours. but what about the working people who can't afford to sponsor political parties? well, their interests are simply subordinated because if the interests of the big donors are not addressed they will simply withdraw their investment. this ensures that corporate interests, usually in conflict with ordinary peoples interests wil come first and foremost. this explains new labour's betrayal of the unions, mass privitisation and bogus private finance initiative.
an interesting fact is that afghanistan women had the vote decades before the suffragettes won their battle, but after financing, arming and bringing to power the taliban in their "democratic" (ha!) war against communism the cia and thatcher soon put an end to that didn't they?
there are many more battles still to be won by progressive people against the capitalist ruling class, among them worker control of the means of production, the end of imperialist globalisation, the end of environmental destruction by indusrty and fuel companies amongst others.
you sad apologists for the capitalist system are what is holding back these victories for ordinary people and you play right into the fat cats' hands.
most western economists will agree that marx was in fact the greatest capitalist economist of all time. he predicted the destructive and reactionary nature of capitalist-imperialism as we see it today more than 150 years ago. capitalists make no apologies for the inhuman nature of their system, but people like you, by attempting to put a friendly face on capitalism, are comdeming humanity to a bleak future when you should be fighting with us ordinary people. the democratic rights that we enjoy today are basic human rights and are inevitable with or without capitalism.

[Guest]

you lambast china for there oppression however you never mention the west's oppressions. the u.s keeps latin america stuck in the never ending cycle of poverty by forcing the goverments of colombia and puru to destroy there most succsessfull industry ( the drug trade) of which the western world are the largest consumers. And what about the fact that the u.s. while not out right oppressing it's own people it has throughout the 1900's try to tople goverments that preach contrary to the u.s. way of life. so before you lambast china you should start with the all mighty u.s. one who ahs escaped internetional riticule through there "biggest dick diplomacy"

[TNapoleon]

I wholeheartedly agree with ElChe's opening post. Today's China is a shame for all of those who believe in Mao's doctrines and to a lesser extent, any form of Marxism.
It is not only opressive but also hypocritical.

However, it is still FAR more advanced as a society than the US of A. As the "Guest" pointed out, we in Latin America have suffered much more than an American or European could possibly imagine. My country saw 21 years of CIA-styled military dictatorship. While not as totalitarian as the Chilean Pinochet, our generals did even worse to our country in the long run. They destroyed our education system, which used to be fair for all. They brought even more people to the world of misery and starvation. They forbade political freedom and murdered thousands of revolutionary activists.

Agusto, can you explain how "capitalism brings democracy" using any Latin American country as an example?

[TNapoleon]

As a keen reader of Trotsky I have the tendencies to say you are right and both Stalin and Mao were fascist. But this is simplistic blindness. Stalin made his worse while leading the USSR and effectively killed soviet socialism, building instead a sick form of state capitalism.
But he won WWII against the real fascists, who hated everything that was red. Although he was a disgraceful dictator, Stalin had an historical importance that we could not deny, unless we are willing to colaborate with the imperialistic press that tells us that "the tragedy of communism killed millions throughout the whole 20th century".

Don't get me wrong. I hate Stalin, but I know that he was no Hitler either.

[gooddoctor]

elche, if you really want to find out about mao, why don't you go to china and ask the ordinary people there how they feel about him? i did, and his portrait is everywhere. his mausoleum in the biggest public square in the world is packed to capacity from the moment it opens to the moment it closes. everyone i talked to was just as content as any londoner, and more civilised and liberated than any other asian peoples i have come into contact with (apart from the japs maybe). it is not a coincidence that china is today's fastest growing economy. mao made the chinese people human for the first time in their lives and they love him for it. and so do i. regardless of what his latter years brought. violent revolution is always turbulent, and at the time it was the only option for the chinese people. look at any other form of revolution around the world and see if it wasn't followed by bloodshed. you just can't expect instant stability in a place the size, disorganisation and state of war that china was in until 1949 when mao liberated his people.
i have never read trotsky, but i like what i've heard.

[Guest]

"japs"?

[Moskitto]

I got called a retard for saying Mao and Stalin weren't communist.

I'm a communist, Those Nazi wannabes weren't. They were Red Fascists.

The sick thing is the anti-communist websites put us into the same brackets as nazis because

1. They think we worship Stalin and Mao. (Even though I might start selling Stalin dartboards)
2. Because they think we worship them they think we're the same as Nazis.
3. If you tell them you don't they just riddicule you.

Then they claim that they were communists. Their policies were nothing to do with communism.

Stalin - Appointed former Nazis to run eastern European satalites - No TRUE communist would ever let a former nazi rule.
Mao - Nationalism - Marx wants to eliminate national borders.
Pol Pot - Kill educated people - Marx wants everyone to have a free education.

But still they look at claims and names

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, They try to claim it was socialist.

WELL I SAY THIS

Democratic Republic of the Congo
Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea
German Democratic Republic
Holy Roman Empire

Does the name make it run that type of government?

Ooops I forgot if it has Socialist in it the rules are different.