SOS Letter from China

[Ace Nova]

Which you did by hightlighting a dictionary quote on what militarism is, well wouldn't the same distinction be immediately apparent if one was to refer to the dictionary for a the meaning of socialism and then compared it to your initial appraisal of if?

I did that to show that "Militarism" wasn't even a form of government, it's actually a quasi derogatory term intended to ridicule the idea. It's almost the same thing as calling all religious extremists...terrorists.

If he actually had implemented words like "Democracy, Republic, Federalism, etc..." (Although I would have disagreed) It would have made a little more sense.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Kasanova King

[Guest Len B'stard]

I understand that but what i'm saying is the method that you chose to make that distinction knocks your prior appraisal kinda crooked.

[Ace Nova]

I understand that but what i'm saying is the method that you chose to make that distinction knocks your prior appraisal kinda crooked.

Really? You kind of lost me there.

[wasted]

I have found you can find happiness in slavery.

[Guest Len B'stard]

I have found you can find happiness in slavery.

The poets would have you believe its the only place.

[downzy]

I understand that but what i'm saying is the method that you chose to make that distinction knocks your prior appraisal kinda crooked.

Yeah, I don't think he got what the intention was there. I was simply swapping out one form of collective behavior for another. I could have corporations, government bureaucracies, hell, even sports teams.

The intention was to illustrate that socialism (or communism) is being criticized for rending the individual as irrelevant. But so too do other forms of social organization. In the military, the individual means fuck all. It's all for the greater good of the military. Same occurs with corporations and even sports teams.

I'm glad someone got my point rather than sticking with wooden definitions.

Edited November 8, 2013 by downzy

[Guest Len B'stard]

All form of human endeavour will be coloured by the ability (or lack of) of the people executing it, by which reckoning no way or tao or method ever functions in reality as it does on paper, this isn't to say that they aren't functional, be it capitalism or socialism or whatever. Personally i think that, despite shortcomings on both sides, i will always lean or sympathise somewhat with socialist ideals because, at the bottom of it they function on the basis of the greater good, it's an inclusive philosophy.

Quite frankly, as far nullifying the individual goes, personally, i think they're both pretty even it's just socialism, in the eyes of some, is more clear cut with it's intent. Political systems, ideologies all function under the concept of society, the populous, so in a sense they all nullify the individual to a point. Patriotism nullifies the individual, this is something that a lot of red-blooded capitalists ignore.

And not to have too much of a pop at America but their weird fear of socialism under the guise of 'it nullifies the individual' doesn't really sit comfortably alongside the 'you're either with us or against us' modern American ethic. I remember shades saying once that if you didn't take off your hat and stand up for the national anthem at baseball there's a good chance you'll get accosted.

The point of my saying this is that these age-old adages like 'it kills the individual' are decrepit hoaxes that do not bear even the most simplistic of scrutinies, the truth is always in the grey area and to me the grey area is best defined by the notion that political systems are as good as the people attempting to execute them.

Does the corporate power structure begat by every successful capitalist regime not nullify the individual too?

The notion that any man-made system is or will ever be perfect is just daydreaming.

Edited November 8, 2013 by sugaraylen

[downzy]

LOL, you honestly think that exploitation in capitalist countries is little more than the result of corruption in government? REALLY??? WTF!?!?!

Again, just so we're clear, it is your opinion that exploitation doesn't happen in capitalist countries, and if it does, it is only because government corruption allows for it. Explain slavery in America. Was the U.S. government corrupt until 1865? Explain the present day exploitation of tomato pickers in Imokolee, Florida. Explain everything about Bangladesh, which has a $37 a month minimum wage (which works out to between 16 and 20 cents an hour). Explain the exploitation of coal miners in Pennsylvania and West Virgina in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that didn't end, or at the very most abated, until the FDR administration passed labor laws protecting workers right to organize and strike (something that goes against the purpose of capitalism).

"Capitalist entities" (or Corporations as most people call them) have one driving force: maximizing profits. If they can exploit workers to maximize profits, they will be allowed to do so. It's a pattern of behavior that comes with millions of examples. To claim that communism is more susceptible to exploitation (which, as it has been practice, has been) is to ignore the multitude of examples of where capitalism breeds exploitation. It is the very thing that drove Marx in his writing - his primary concern when fleshing out communism was to relieve workers during of his day of their exploitative working conditions that were common in capitalist societies. Communism, as it was envisioned by Marx, was a response to exploitation as it was permitted under capitalist systems during the 19th century.

So if communism is synonomus with authoritarianism (and I'm not saying it's not), why do we still have authoritarianism as a term/concept? If you could, please identify the main difference between the two. I'm curious if you yourself view them one in the same.

I'm not sure if you're serious just being stubbornly argumentative.

I stated that the "Majority" of the blame would most likely go to the governments of those countries. That was an educated guess as I am sure the half dozen countries you mentioned all have different and relative scenarios. I'm not foolish enough to generalize but apparently you are.

As far as the U.S. government and slavery, yes, I would say there were extreme flaws - especially philosophically - in the U.S. government both past and present...that's why there are 27 amendments to the constitution. The difference is that the government structure itself is sound enough and has enough checks and balances to allow for these amendments.

Like you said, Corporations are built for profit. If they see a weakness or a loophole (which would most likely be allowed by a certain government and law, btw ) then I'm sure they will take advantage of it. Most are built and designed for maximum profits and growth - so in a sad way, they are just doing what they were designed for. So yes, without government regulation, they will run wild.

Personally, I understand what communism is. I believe that communism starts off (closely enough) in the way it was intended but leads to authoritarian and even brutal forms of government, as we have seen many times throughout history. That's about the 12th time I've stated that in this thread. If you don't get it by now, I'm sorry, you won't ever get it.

So please stop dodging my question. What happened to all those communist groups that started all those revolutions you speak of??

What I'm trying to do is find some form of consistency in your argument.

You want to argue that Communism is bad, that it is a form of societal organization that is susceptible to corruption, exploitation, and abuse of power. You claim that it is a failed system.

But then you also argue that China is communist, which I have a hard time reconciling with your previous argument. By the logic you've mapped out so far, we would have to deduce that you think of China as a failed state. But almost nobody who studies China would argue that to be the case.

I mean, it would make your argument far more congruent if you didn't see China as a Communist state since, you know, it is the second biggest economy in the world (and likely to be the biggest in 10 years) when measured by GDP. Over 250 million of its citizens joined the middle class in the last twenty years. And it is becoming a growing and credible threat to the military hegemony of the United States. If you're assessment that China really is communist, you're not helping your argument that communism is a failed system.

But what about the exploitation, you might argue. Sure. But like I pointed out, exploitation is not a problem solely in China. It can be found in any and all forms of governance, even here in present day United States (like I said, go have a look at what's going on with tomato pickers in Imokolee, Florida - I suggest reading the book "Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt" by Chris Hedges). In fact, it could be argued that many of the workers in China are better treated than in many other countries. China's minimum wage in most of its provinces is around $200 a month (still exploitative), but compare that to Bangladesh, which is both a democratic and capitalist state, where workers are promised only $37 a month. In fact, a recent trend has seen corporations moving production out of China in favor of countries with fewer worker protections and cheaper wage rates. Again, this only goes to underscore the argument that corporations are driving exploitation in today's world.

I'll answer your question (despite the fact that you never answered mine: do Chinese workers own the means to their production? Do they have a stake in what they produce?) but will also ask you another question for you to answer in exchange.

First, to answer your question, for the most part those Communist revolutionary groups are still in power (whether it be in name only is another issue). North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, China - all countries where the revolutionary groups still monopolize power. Some have become dictatorships (North Korea, Cuba) while others have not (China, Vietnam). But as I mentioned before, few of the groups that led the revolution were actually communist. Not one of the newly established governments (whether it be in Russia, China, Vietnam, North Korea) actually called the new system communist. Neither did they at any time claim that establishing a communist order was the sole purpose of their revolution. The label "communist" were often ascribed to them by adversary countries (i.e. the United States).

So I answered your question, now answer mine. What is the difference between China and Iran with respect to how people are govern? Both are authoritarian regimes, both have propaganda machines, both have a private military that serves the ruling elite, and both use a system of patronage to fill positions of power. Yet, why is China considered communist? It can't be for economic reasons since they are now, for the most part, a market economy? What qualitative difference would you use to explain why we differentiate?

Finally, I'm not here to necessarily defend communism. It is sensible to take issue with it, but I think you're confusing the ideology with just plain old authoritarianism. Like I said, authoritarianism has been the by-product of many forms of government (including capitalist democracies). Moreover, why do "communist" countries fail? Far more likely for a communist state's failure is its inability to maintain productivity levels. Communism's biggest flaw is underestimates humanity's greed. Humans, for the most part, need to be incentivized. On the face of it, the fault of Marx's writings is that it finds humans far too altruistic than they really are. It's the motivation for more that communism has a hard time explaining for. This is why the U.S.S.R. was finally toppled: it was broke. It's economic model reduced its citizens to beggars, where grocery stores were empty and consumer needs were left unfulfilled. I suppose you could point out North Korea to argue my point (since it woefully fails to meet the basic needs of its citizens), but let's be honest, North Korea's survival has everything to do with China's support rather than the strength of its economy.

Edited November 8, 2013 by downzy

[Snake-Pit]

China is corporate America's wet dream.

America wins.

Ethics are relative, that's why we in the west continue to buy from Chinese labour camps.

Chinese ethics are China's problem.

No trades embargo until they piss us off; Having sweatshops and forced labour camps to make them more cost effective doesn't piss us off.

[downzy]

And not to have too much of a pop at America but their weird fear of socialism under the guise of 'it nullifies the individual' doesn't really sit comfortably alongside the 'you're either with us or against us' modern American ethic. I remember shades saying once that if you didn't take off your hat and stand up for the national anthem at baseball there's a good chance you'll get accosted.

Yeah, I saw this first hand when I went to Cedar Point (large amusement park in Ohio) this past summer. My girlfriend and I got there a bit early, before the park opened. Before they let everyone in they had everyone turn to the massive flag that flew above the entrance way while they played the national anthem. Everyone took their hats off and held their hands over their hearts.

At an amusement park!

I found it so odd that I took video of it with my phone. I tried to keep my giggling to a minimum, but afterward both my girlfriend and I were like, "what the fuck?!"

[Snake-Pit]

China is more proof that Communism is evil.

[Guest Len B'stard]

And not to have too much of a pop at America but their weird fear of socialism under the guise of 'it nullifies the individual' doesn't really sit comfortably alongside the 'you're either with us or against us' modern American ethic. I remember shades saying once that if you didn't take off your hat and stand up for the national anthem at baseball there's a good chance you'll get accosted.

Yeah, I saw this first hand when I went to Cedar Point (large amusement park in Ohio) this past summer. My girlfriend and I got there a bit early, before the park opened. Before they let everyone in they had everyone turn to the massive flag that flew above the entrance way while they played the national anthem. Everyone took their hats off and held their hands over their hearts.

At an amusement park!

I found it so odd that I took video of it with my phone. I tried to keep my giggling to a minimum, but afterward both my girlfriend and I were like, "what the fuck?!"

My dear fellow, i feel you're gonna land yourself in some difficulty one of these days

[Ace Nova]

Yeah, I don't think he got what the intention was there. I was simply swapping out one form of collective behavior for another. I could have corporations, government bureaucracies, hell, even sports teams.

The intention was to illustrate that socialism (or communism) is being criticized for rending the individual as irrelevant. But so too do other forms of social organization. In the military, the individual means fuck all. It's all for the greater good of the military. Same occurs with corporations and even sports teams.

I'm glad someone got my point rather than sticking with wooden definitions.

That's exactly why it doesn't make any sense. The difference is that you can choose to be part of a corporation, sports teams, etc. Once you switch over to absolute socialism (the way it has been implemented) you don't have a choice. If you can't see the difference between the two then I can't help you.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Kasanova King

[Ace Nova]

What I'm trying to do is find some form of consistency in your argument.

You want to argue that Communism is bad, that it is a form of societal organization that is susceptible to corruption, exploitation, and abuse of power. You claim that it is a failed system.

But then you also argue that China is communist, which I have a hard time reconciling with your previous argument. By the logic you've mapped out so far, we would have to deduce that you think of China as a failed state. But almost nobody who studies China would argue that to be the case.

I mean, it would make your argument far more congruent if you didn't see China as a Communist state since, you know, it is the second biggest economy in the world (and likely to be the biggest in 10 years) when measured by GDP. Over 250 million of its citizens joined the middle class in the last twenty years. And it is becoming a growing and credible threat to the military hegemony of the United States. If you're assessment that China really is communist, you're not helping your argument that communism is a failed system.

But what about the exploitation, you might argue. Sure. But like I pointed out, exploitation is not a problem solely in China. It can be found in any and all forms of governance, even here in present day United States (like I said, go have a look at what's going on with tomato pickers in Imokolee, Florida - I suggest reading the book "Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt" by Chris Hedges). In fact, it could be argued that many of the workers in China are better treated than in many other countries. China's minimum wage in most of its provinces is around $200 a month (still exploitative), but compare that to Bangladesh, which is both a democratic and capitalist state, where workers are promised only $37 a month. In fact, a recent trend has seen corporations moving production out of China in favor of countries with fewer worker protections and cheaper wage rates. Again, this only goes to underscore the argument that corporations are driving exploitation in today's world.

I'll answer your question (despite the fact that you never answered mine: do Chinese workers own the means to their production? Do they have a stake in what they produce?) but will also ask you another question for you to answer in exchange.

First, to answer your question, for the most part those Communist revolutionary groups are still in power (whether it be in name only is another issue). North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, China - all countries where the revolutionary groups still monopolize power. Some have become dictatorships (North Korea, Cuba) while others have not (China, Vietnam). But as I mentioned before, few of the groups that led the revolution were actually communist. Not one of the newly established governments (whether it be in Russia, China, Vietnam, North Korea) actually called the new system communist. Neither did they at any time claim that establishing a communist order was the sole purpose of their revolution. The label "communist" were often ascribed to them by adversary countries (i.e. the United States).

So I answered your question, now answer mine. What is the difference between China and Iran with respect to how people are govern? Both are authoritarian regimes, both have propaganda machines, both have a private military that serves the ruling elite, and both use a system of patronage to fill positions of power. Yet, why is China considered communist? It can't be for economic reasons since they are now, for the most part, a market economy? What qualitative difference would you use to explain why we differentiate?

Finally, I'm not here to necessarily defend communism. It is sensible to take issue with it, but I think you're confusing the ideology with just plain old authoritarianism. Like I said, authoritarianism has been the by-product of many forms of government (including capitalist democracies). Moreover, why do "communist" countries fail? Far more likely for a communist state's failure is its inability to maintain productivity levels. Communism's biggest flaw is underestimates humanity's greed. Humans, for the most part, need to be incentivized. On the face of it, the fault of Marx's writings is that it finds humans far too altruistic than they really are. It's the motivation for more that communism has a hard time explaining for. This is why the U.S.S.R. was finally toppled: it was broke. It's economic model reduced its citizens to beggars, where grocery stores were empty and consumer needs were left unfulfilled. I suppose you could point out North Korea to argue my point (since it woefully fails to meet the basic needs of its citizens), but let's be honest, North Korea's survival has everything to do with China's support rather than the strength of its economy.

Would you want to live in China right now as an average, everyday working class citizen? How about as one of the 71%+ of the population that lives on less than $5.00 per day?

Thought so ....so yes, it's a failed state. Any state that requires "near" slave like conditions in order to function is a failed state. Spin it anyway you want, China (thus far) has failed its people.

Some Chinese workers do own the means to their production and some don't. Same thing goes for a "stake" in what they produce. That question is as relative as any question can get.

I think you may have some serious issues when it comes to being anal retentive ... because you keep harping on semantics. I already stated that if you want to call China an authoritarian government (which became that way because of communism) I'm ok with it....why do you keep talking in circles?? Are you seriously that ill? Either that or you must be an English major....

Iran became authoritarian for a different reasons... not because of communism...so I really don't see the correlation between the two.

As for your final paragraph, I more or less agree with just about everything you said.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Yeah, I don't think he got what the intention was there. I was simply swapping out one form of collective behavior for another. I could have corporations, government bureaucracies, hell, even sports teams.

The intention was to illustrate that socialism (or communism) is being criticized for rending the individual as irrelevant. But so too do other forms of social organization. In the military, the individual means fuck all. It's all for the greater good of the military. Same occurs with corporations and even sports teams.

I'm glad someone got my point rather than sticking with wooden definitions.

That's exactly why it doesn't make any sense. The difference is that you can choose to be part of a corporation, sports teams, etc. Once you switch over to absolute socialism (the way it has been implemented) you don't have a choice. If you can't see the difference between the two you're not nearly as intelligent as I had originally thought.

You don't have to be part of a corporation to be effected by it though, do you? And as far as disparities between the rich and poor America is not the best example.

Edited November 8, 2013 by sugaraylen

[Facekicker]

The red scaring from clueless yanks on this board is fucking hilarious

[Ace Nova]

You don't have to be part of a corporation to be effected by it though, do you? And as far as disparities between the rich and poor America is not the best example.

In a democratic "free" state, you can also choose whether or not to do business with certain corporations. In a completely socialistic society (the way it had been implemented, downzy ), you won't even have that choice.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Kasanova King

[downzy]

Yeah, I don't think he got what the intention was there. I was simply swapping out one form of collective behavior for another. I could have corporations, government bureaucracies, hell, even sports teams.

The intention was to illustrate that socialism (or communism) is being criticized for rending the individual as irrelevant. But so too do other forms of social organization. In the military, the individual means fuck all. It's all for the greater good of the military. Same occurs with corporations and even sports teams.

I'm glad someone got my point rather than sticking with wooden definitions.

That's exactly why it doesn't make any sense. The difference is that you can choose to be part of a corporation, sports teams, etc. Once you switch over to absolute socialism (the way it has been implemented) you don't have a choice. If you can't see the difference between the two you're not nearly as intelligent as I had originally thought.

First, I think you're missing my larger point. The loss of the individual is a reality even within societies that are supposedly about the sanctity of individualism. Even in the United States, unless you're willing to completely go it alone (exemplified by someone like Rat Brain), the citizen will always been sacrificed for the greater good - whether it be in military service, working for a corporation, or even attending a sporting event. Sure, there is the ability to choose between these events, but almost all choices one makes about civic participation (assuming one wants to remain operating within the polity), involves some level of sacrifice for the sake of community.

You keep mentioning "absolute socialism" as if a) there are concrete examples of it actually taking place; b) that even within countries like the former U.S.S.R., North Korea or Vietnam there are not individuals who prevail over the community. If "absolute socialism" were to actually take place, we wouldn't see the rise and celebration of certain leaders, now would we? If "absolute socialism" is the end of the individual, why do some individuals still prevail? Why do people like Stalin, Kruschev, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Jung Ill, Fidel Castro, or Mao become exulted deities? That seems to belie your claim that "absolute socialism" renders the individual irrelevant. And this goes back to my first point, the instances that you presume to be examples of "absolute socialism" betray your original description. The celebration of maniacal leaders would undermine your argument that socialism subverts the individual, wouldn't it? Or do you not see that?

Second, I find it interesting that you invoke the notion of choice when Chinese citizens are more free in certain respects than their counterparts in liberal democracies. The biggest example I can think of is that Chinese citizens are not required by law to enroll in military service. The same cannot be said for citizens of Mexico, Brazil, Israel, Turkey, South Korea, Norway, Finland, and Switzerland (and many others). How is, that in an "absolute socialist" country like China that people have less obligation to the state with respect to their military service?

Edited November 8, 2013 by downzy

[downzy]

What I'm trying to do is find some form of consistency in your argument.

You want to argue that Communism is bad, that it is a form of societal organization that is susceptible to corruption, exploitation, and abuse of power. You claim that it is a failed system.

But then you also argue that China is communist, which I have a hard time reconciling with your previous argument. By the logic you've mapped out so far, we would have to deduce that you think of China as a failed state. But almost nobody who studies China would argue that to be the case.

I mean, it would make your argument far more congruent if you didn't see China as a Communist state since, you know, it is the second biggest economy in the world (and likely to be the biggest in 10 years) when measured by GDP. Over 250 million of its citizens joined the middle class in the last twenty years. And it is becoming a growing and credible threat to the military hegemony of the United States. If you're assessment that China really is communist, you're not helping your argument that communism is a failed system.

But what about the exploitation, you might argue. Sure. But like I pointed out, exploitation is not a problem solely in China. It can be found in any and all forms of governance, even here in present day United States (like I said, go have a look at what's going on with tomato pickers in Imokolee, Florida - I suggest reading the book "Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt" by Chris Hedges). In fact, it could be argued that many of the workers in China are better treated than in many other countries. China's minimum wage in most of its provinces is around $200 a month (still exploitative), but compare that to Bangladesh, which is both a democratic and capitalist state, where workers are promised only $37 a month. In fact, a recent trend has seen corporations moving production out of China in favor of countries with fewer worker protections and cheaper wage rates. Again, this only goes to underscore the argument that corporations are driving exploitation in today's world.

I'll answer your question (despite the fact that you never answered mine: do Chinese workers own the means to their production? Do they have a stake in what they produce?) but will also ask you another question for you to answer in exchange.

First, to answer your question, for the most part those Communist revolutionary groups are still in power (whether it be in name only is another issue). North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, China - all countries where the revolutionary groups still monopolize power. Some have become dictatorships (North Korea, Cuba) while others have not (China, Vietnam). But as I mentioned before, few of the groups that led the revolution were actually communist. Not one of the newly established governments (whether it be in Russia, China, Vietnam, North Korea) actually called the new system communist. Neither did they at any time claim that establishing a communist order was the sole purpose of their revolution. The label "communist" were often ascribed to them by adversary countries (i.e. the United States).

So I answered your question, now answer mine. What is the difference between China and Iran with respect to how people are govern? Both are authoritarian regimes, both have propaganda machines, both have a private military that serves the ruling elite, and both use a system of patronage to fill positions of power. Yet, why is China considered communist? It can't be for economic reasons since they are now, for the most part, a market economy? What qualitative difference would you use to explain why we differentiate?

Finally, I'm not here to necessarily defend communism. It is sensible to take issue with it, but I think you're confusing the ideology with just plain old authoritarianism. Like I said, authoritarianism has been the by-product of many forms of government (including capitalist democracies). Moreover, why do "communist" countries fail? Far more likely for a communist state's failure is its inability to maintain productivity levels. Communism's biggest flaw is underestimates humanity's greed. Humans, for the most part, need to be incentivized. On the face of it, the fault of Marx's writings is that it finds humans far too altruistic than they really are. It's the motivation for more that communism has a hard time explaining for. This is why the U.S.S.R. was finally toppled: it was broke. It's economic model reduced its citizens to beggars, where grocery stores were empty and consumer needs were left unfulfilled. I suppose you could point out North Korea to argue my point (since it woefully fails to meet the basic needs of its citizens), but let's be honest, North Korea's survival has everything to do with China's support rather than the strength of its economy.

Would you want to live in China right now as an average, everyday working class citizen? How about as one of the 71%+ of the population that lives on less than $5.00 per day?

Thought so ....so yes, it's a failed state. Any state that requires "near" slave like conditions in order to function is a failed state. Spin it anyway you want, China (thus far) has failed its people.

Some Chinese workers do own the means to their production and some don't. Same thing goes for a "stake" in what they produce. That question is as relative as any question can get.

I think you may have some serious issues when it comes to being anal retentive ... because you keep harping on semantics. I already stated that if you want to call China an authoritarian government (which became that way because of communism) I'm ok with it....why do you keep talking in circles?? Are you seriously that ill? Either that or you must be an English major....

Iran became authoritarian for a different reasons... not because of communism...so I really don't see the correlation between the two.

As for your final paragraph, I more or less agree with just about everything you said.

But for a country to be truly communist, according to the literature, all the workers must own the means of production. Since they don't, it's not a communist country.

I don't get why you don't get that. The basic baseline for what constitutes a communist country is what we've already covered: ownership of production means. That is the basic tenet of communism. If you don't get that, you don't get what communism is. Right now you're entering into Shades territory relative to his position on Obamacare. If you don't truly understand what Obamacare is, you shouldn't have your opinions respected or accepted. Sorry to be a dick, but I don't know how else to explain that. You will not find a single political or economic scholar who would say that China is not a market economy. Market economies are not communist economies. It's bloody basic dude.

I harp on China being referred to as a communist country because that's where you started in your argument. You stated that it was both authoritative and communist. Now all of a sudden you're stating that you were fine with it not being considered communist. When did that happen?

I'd be careful as an American when using poverty as the determinative factor on whether a state has failed or not. If that's the case what state hasn't failed? Is India a failed state? Brazil? Mexico? None of those countries are considered communist, so why have they failed (i.e. why do they have high rates of poverty)? Hell, what about the U.S., where 15 percent of America's population lives in poverty. Also interesting that China has seen a drop in their poverty rate from 85 percent in 1981 to 13 percent by 2008 (granted, the World Bank sets a low bar, with poverty considered those living on less than $1.25 a day). If communism equals higher rates of poverty, why has China moved in the other direction?

I only point out the similarities between Iran and China because the article you posted near the beginning of this thread suggested that a communist country can still be considered communist if contains a private army, has an organized propaganda machine, and uses patronage to fill powerful positions within society. Iran has all of those things, but no one would ever consider them communist. China does as well, but since it too also has a market economy, it doesn't make any sense to come to a different conclusion.

Edited November 8, 2013 by downzy

[Ace Nova]

First, I think you're missing my larger point. The loss of the individual is a reality even within societies that are supposedly about the sanctity of individualism. Even in the United States, unless you're willing to completely go it alone (exemplified by someone like Rat Brain), the citizen will always been sacrificed for the greater good - whether it be in military service, working for a corporation, or even attending a sporting event. Sure, there is the ability to choose between these events, but almost all choices one makes about civic participation (assuming one wants to remain operating within the polity), involves some level of sacrifice for the sake of community.

You keep mentioning "absolute socialism" as if a) there are concrete examples of it actually taking place; b) that even within countries like the former U.S.S.R., North Korea or Vietnam there are not individuals who prevail over the community. If "absolute socialism" were to actually take place, we wouldn't see the rise and celebration of certain leaders, now would we? If "absolute socialism" is the end of the individual, why do some individuals still prevail? Why do people like Stalin, Kruschev, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Jung Ill, Fidel Castro, or Mao become exulted deities? That seems to belie your claim that "absolute socialism" renders the individual irrelevant. And this goes back to my first point, the instances that you presume to be examples of "absolute socialism" betray your original description. The celebration of maniacal leaders would undermine your argument that socialism subverts the individual, wouldn't it? Or do you not see that?

Second, I find it interesting that you invoke the notion of choice when Chinese citizens are more free in certain respects than their counterparts in liberal democracies. The biggest example I can think of is that Chinese citizens are not required by law to enroll in military service. The same cannot be said for citizens of Mexico, Brazil, Israel, Turkey, South Korea, Norway, Finland, and Switzerland (and many others). How is, that in an "absolute socialist" country like China that people have less obligation to the state with respect to their military service?

Again, the individual has a choice. If he or she wants to join certain groups knowing that the "overall" sacrifice is for the greater good, then he or she still has the choice to join or not to join. If he or she no longer feels like being part of a certain group, he or she can choose to leave that group. When your government becomes completely socialistic, you no longer have that choice. (as defined by history).

As for your second point, you just answered your own question. Initially (as we have seen throughout history) "Socialism" slowly and steadily removes peoples' desires in regards to individuality. Psychologically, that opens up huge voids....and these voids have allowed individuals to gain enormous amounts of power (because everyone else is no longer an individual and they are fighting for the "common" good).

Your final point is actually technically inaccurate. Although it is not enforced, in theory, China does indeed have military conscription:

"At present, military conscription only exists in theory and has done so since the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949. Due to China's huge population, and therefore the large number of individuals who volunteer to join the regular armed forces, universal military conscription has never been enforced.

Every Chinese citizen, both male and female, who attend further education are required to attend a military training period of around 20 days as a part of a military education.

Conscription is enshrined in Article 55 of the Constitution, which states: "It is a sacred duty of every citizen of the People's Republic of China to defend his or her motherland and resist invasion. It is an honored Obligation of the citizens of the People's Republic of China to perform military service and to join the militia forces."^[18]

As of 1998, the legal basis of conscription was stated to be the 1984 Military Service Law which describes military service as a duty for "all citizens without distinction of race (...) and religious creed." This law has not been amended since it came into effect.^[18] Military service is normally performed in the regular armed forces but the 1984 law does allow for conscription into the reserve forces in times of national emergency."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service

And if that's the only thing you could find in terms of individual freedoms of Chinese people, then I'll stick to the U.S.A....thanks.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Kasanova King

[downzy]

Well, of course in the contest of over who is more free, an American is always going to win over China. But that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that Chinese citizens have had, in all practical terms, the freedom to enter into real military service voluntarily as opposed to many other nations.

And no, my point isn't technically inaccurate. Your post starts off by saying that military conscription only exists in theory and has never been enforced. Moreover, if and when students are required to attend a military session, it's for twenty days (keep in my the percentage of people who actually advance that far in their education in China is very small). Compare that to Israelis, who are required to spend two years in the military. There's quantitative difference, don't you think?

Hell, it wasn't too long ago in America's history where conscription was a real and enforced policy. Care to square that round peg somehow?

Edited November 8, 2013 by downzy

[Guest Len B'stard]

You don't have to be part of a corporation to be effected by it though, do you? And as far as disparities between the rich and poor America is not the best example.

In a democratic "free" state, you can also choose whether or not to do business with certain corporations. In a completely socialistic society (the way it had been implemented, downzy ), you won't even have that choice.

Yeah well you do and you don't because if they have interests in all the key avenues you are kinda left with no choice. For example I am led to believe that in America there are certain areas that are bereft of Mom and Pop run businesses as i believe you guys call em, so if you have a problem with certain corporate structures and the only place to go shopping for your food in a viable radius are corporate run stores like Walmart then, effectively, you don't have a choice, do you?

[Ace Nova]

But for a country to be truly communist, according to the literature, all the workers must own the means of production. Since they don't, it's not a communist country.

I don't get why you don't get that. The basic baseline for what constitutes a communist country is what we've already covered: ownership of production means. That is the basic tenet of communism. If you don't get that, you don't get what communism is. Right now you're entering into Shades territory relative to his position on Obamacare. If you don't truly understand what Obamacare is, you shouldn't have your opinions respected or accepted. Sorry to be a dick, but I don't know how else to explain that. You will not find a single political or economic scholar who would say that China is not a market economy. Market economies are not communist economies. It's bloody basic dude.

I harp on China being referred to as a communist country because that's where you started in your argument. You stated that it was both authoritative and communist. Now all of a sudden you're stating that you were fine with it not being considered communist. When did that happen?

I'd be careful as an American when using poverty as the determinative factor on whether a state has failed or not. If that's the case what state hasn't failed? Is India a failed state? Brazil? Mexico? None of those countries are considered communist, so why have they failed (i.e. why do they have high rates of poverty)? Hell, what about the U.S., where 15 percent of America's population lives in poverty. Also interesting that China has seen a drop in their poverty rate from 85 percent in 1981 to 13 percent by 2008 (granted, the World Bank sets a low bar, with poverty considered those living on less than $1.25 a day). If communism equals higher rates of poverty, why has China moved in the other direction?

I only point out the similarities between Iran and China because the article you posted near the beginning of this thread suggested that a communist country can still be considered communist if contains a private army, has an organized propaganda machine, and uses patronage to fill powerful positions within society. Iran has all of those things, but no one would ever consider them communist. China does as well, but since it too also has a market economy, it doesn't make any sense to come to a different conclusion.

Again, whenever you're at the losing end of a debate, you talk in circles. You keep going back to semantics. You can compare me to Shades all you want - the difference is that I base my thoughts and opinions on historical facts - not opinions and theories. This is a debate you cannot win unless you have a time machine and go back and change history.

Post# 42 in this thread:

"China is still communist. Communist in the way 90% of the world thinks of communists. We're talking about "real world" implementation of communism...not theory. If you want to call it what was once communist but has lead to an authoritarian government (because of communism), I'm ok with that too....again, semantics."

So nope, not changing my stance "all of a sudden"...it's been the same the entire thread...you just keep trying to spin it around so some how you actually look like you're making sense...when in reality, anyone with half a brain can clearly see what you're doing.

Just stop...are you seriously comparing what it's like to being "poor" in the U.S. vs. poor in China? Really?

I don't necessarily disagree with your final points either. My overall statement - since my very first post in this thread - has been that Socialism/Communism eventually can (and has) lead to authoritarian forms of government. And it's true. You can debate this for the next 100 years...but like I said, unless you can change history, you're wrong.

[downzy]

But for a country to be truly communist, according to the literature, all the workers must own the means of production. Since they don't, it's not a communist country.

I don't get why you don't get that. The basic baseline for what constitutes a communist country is what we've already covered: ownership of production means. That is the basic tenet of communism. If you don't get that, you don't get what communism is. Right now you're entering into Shades territory relative to his position on Obamacare. If you don't truly understand what Obamacare is, you shouldn't have your opinions respected or accepted. Sorry to be a dick, but I don't know how else to explain that. You will not find a single political or economic scholar who would say that China is not a market economy. Market economies are not communist economies. It's bloody basic dude.

I harp on China being referred to as a communist country because that's where you started in your argument. You stated that it was both authoritative and communist. Now all of a sudden you're stating that you were fine with it not being considered communist. When did that happen?

I'd be careful as an American when using poverty as the determinative factor on whether a state has failed or not. If that's the case what state hasn't failed? Is India a failed state? Brazil? Mexico? None of those countries are considered communist, so why have they failed (i.e. why do they have high rates of poverty)? Hell, what about the U.S., where 15 percent of America's population lives in poverty. Also interesting that China has seen a drop in their poverty rate from 85 percent in 1981 to 13 percent by 2008 (granted, the World Bank sets a low bar, with poverty considered those living on less than $1.25 a day). If communism equals higher rates of poverty, why has China moved in the other direction?

I only point out the similarities between Iran and China because the article you posted near the beginning of this thread suggested that a communist country can still be considered communist if contains a private army, has an organized propaganda machine, and uses patronage to fill powerful positions within society. Iran has all of those things, but no one would ever consider them communist. China does as well, but since it too also has a market economy, it doesn't make any sense to come to a different conclusion.

Again, whenever you're at the losing end of a debate, you talk in circles. You keep going back to semantics. You can compare me to Shades all you want - the difference is that I base my thoughts and opinions on historical facts - not opinions and theories. This is a debate you cannot win unless you have a time machine and go back and change history.

Post# 42 in this thread:

"China is still communist. Communist in the way 90% of the world thinks of communists. We're talking about "real world" implementation of communism...not theory. If you want to call it what was once communist but has lead to an authoritarian government (because of communism), I'm ok with that too....again, semantics."

So nope, not changing my stance "all of a sudden"...it's been the same the entire thread...you just keep trying to spin it around so some how you actually look like you're making sense...when in reality, anyone with half a brain can clearly see what you're doing.

Just stop...are you seriously comparing what it's like to being "poor" in the U.S. vs. poor in China? Really?

I don't necessarily disagree with your final points either. My overall statement - since my very first post in this thread - has been that Socialism/Communism eventually can (and has) lead to authoritarian forms of government. And it's true. You can debate this for the next 100 years...but like I said, unless you can change history, you're wrong.

Dude, lol, so China is communist because the rest of the world believes China is communist? That's your argument? Whether they practice the tenets of communism or not, they should still be considered communist because, fuck it, that's just what people have been led to believe. Your argument might have had more weight fifty years ago when egalitarian reforms were actually standard practice in China, but since they've long been abolished and replaced with market-based practices it's asinine to still consider them communist. What are you, a lemming?

Edited November 8, 2013 by downzy

[Ace Nova]

Well, of course in the contest of over who is more free, an American is always going to win over China. But that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that Chinese citizens have had, in all practical terms, the freedom to enter into real military service voluntarily as opposed to many other nations.

And no, my point isn't technically inaccurate. Your post starts off by saying that military conscription only exists in theory and has never been enforced. Moreover, if and when students are required to attend a military session, it's for twenty days (keep in my the percentage of people who actually advance that far in their education in China is very small). Compare that to Israelis, who are required to spend two years in the military. There's quantitative difference, don't you think?

Hell, it wasn't too long ago in America's history where conscription was a real and enforced policy. Care to square that round peg somehow?

You must have missed this part:

"Conscription is enshrined in Article 55 of the Constitution, which states: "It is a sacred duty of every citizen of the People's Republic of China to defend his or her motherland and resist invasion. It is an honored Obligation of the citizens of the People's Republic of China to perform military service and to join the militia forces."

So yes, you're technically wrong. Just like you have been harping on China no longer being communist "by definition". China, by definition, does have military conscription by law, as indicated in article 55 of their constitution.

It's been 40 years since the U.S. had a draft...probably longer than most members of this forum have been alive.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Kasanova King