SOS Letter from China

[Ace Nova]

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?

I was referring to China as being communist because that's what communism has lead to. I stated that very sentiment in my very first post in this thread. And I also went on to say that if that's what most of the world regards as communist, then that is what it is - whether it's technically accurate or not is irrelevant. The rest of the world still regards them as communists because they know what communism has lead to throughout history.

Time and time again, like I have already stated, socialism or communism starts off under the guise of "Marxism" but leads to absolute power and corruption.

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?

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 on 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.

And the U.S. could turn around tomorrow and re-institute the draft. It's been ruled numerous times by the Supreme Court that conscription is constitutional in the U.S.

So what if it says in the Chinese Constitution if that part has never been enforced. If nobody is being conscripted, then you can't really say that conscription is a real presence in the daily lives of Chinese. It's illegal in the state of Alabama to wear a fake mustache in church and make someone laugh (I'm not making that up). Is it enforced? No. So who gives about a law if it's never put into real life application.

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?

I was referring to China as being communist because that's what communism has lead to. I stated that very sentiment in my very first post in this thread. And I also went on to say that if that's what most of the world regards as communist, then that is what it is - whether it's technically accurate or not is irrelevant. The rest of the world still regards them as communists because they know what communism has lead to throughout history.

Time and time again, like I have already stated, Socialism or communism starts off under the guise of "Marxism" but leads to absolute power and corruption.

Sorry, but that's absurd. At one point the entire world thought that the sun circled around the earth, but it doesn't make it valid.

Edited November 8, 2013 by downzy

[Ace Nova]

And the U.S. could turn around tomorrow and re-institute the draft. It's been ruled numerous times by the Supreme Court that conscription is constitutional in the U.S.

So what it says in the Chinese Constitution if that part has never been enforced. If nobody is being conscripted, then you can't really say that conscription is a real presence in the daily lives of Chinese. It's illegal in the state of Alabama to wear a fake mustache in church and make someone laugh (I'm not making that up). Is it enforced? No. So who gives about a law if it's never put into real life application.

Sorry, but that's absurd. At one point the entire world thought that the sun circled around the earth, but it doesn't make it valid.

And? My point was to show you that you were technically inaccurate...the same way you have gone on telling me that I'm technically inaccurate in still calling China communist. Do you see how silly arguing semantics is?

I really don't think it's that absurd. I'll give you an analogy.

Farmers throughout the world went out and bought soy seeds. They planted their soy seeds but when the seeds grew, they became corn plants. Time and time again, these farmers went out and bought soy seeds but the seeds kept developing into corn.

Eventually, the farmers stopped calling the seeds soy seeds and just started calling them corn seeds...because that's what they produced.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Kasanova King

[downzy]

It's not a matter of semantics. That's why we have different words for "authoritarianism" and "communism." They are not one in the same. Calling a country communist because it uses authoritarian tactics makes no sense.

And to follow the logic of your analogy, why do you (and those who don't know better) still refer to China as communist if it is indeed authoritarian? Let's replace some words to highlight why your analogy may not work the way you think it does:

Some Chinese people went out and thought that china should be communist (despite the fact that Mao called it New Democracy, and not communism or socialism). They planted their notions of communism but when the country grew, it became authoritarian. Time and time again, the Chinese thought they were buying into communism when in reality they were buying into an authoritarian regime.

Eventually, the Chinese stopped calling the government communist and just started calling it authoritarian...because that's what it was.

[Ace Nova]

It's not a matter of semantics. That's why we have different words for "authoritarianism" and "communism." They are not one in the same. Calling a country communist because it uses authoritarian tactics makes no sense.

And to follow the logic of your analogy, why do you (and those who don't know better) still refer to China as communist if it is indeed authoritarian? Let's replace some words to highlight why your analogy may not work the way you think it does:

Some Chinese people went out and thought that china should be communist (despite the fact that Mao called it New Democracy, and not communism or socialism). They planted their notions of communism but when the country grew, it became authoritarian. Time and time again, the Chinese thought they were buying into communism when in reality they were buying into an authoritarian regime.

Eventually, the Chinese stopped calling the government communist and just started calling it authoritarian...because that's what it was.

As far as calling China communist we'll have to agree to disagree because neither one of us is going to change the opinion of the other...that part is clear.

As far as your analogy, that's more or less what I've been saying. China at one point was supposedly "Socialist/Communist" (I still think they are, to a degree...you don't) ..or under it's guise. And eventually, it lead to authoritarian rule. That's been my point this entire thread.

[downzy]

It's not a matter of semantics. That's why we have different words for "authoritarianism" and "communism." They are not one in the same. Calling a country communist because it uses authoritarian tactics makes no sense.

And to follow the logic of your analogy, why do you (and those who don't know better) still refer to China as communist if it is indeed authoritarian? Let's replace some words to highlight why your analogy may not work the way you think it does:

Some Chinese people went out and thought that china should be communist (despite the fact that Mao called it New Democracy, and not communism or socialism). They planted their notions of communism but when the country grew, it became authoritarian. Time and time again, the Chinese thought they were buying into communism when in reality they were buying into an authoritarian regime.

Eventually, the Chinese stopped calling the government communist and just started calling it authoritarian...because that's what it was.

As far as calling China communist we'll have to agree to disagree because neither one of us is going to change the opinion of the other...that part is clear.

As far as your analogy, that's more or less what I've been saying. China at one point was supposedly "Socialist/Communist" (I still think they are, to a degree...you don't) ..or under it's guise. And eventually, it lead to authoritarian rule. That's been my point this entire thread.

But China was never truly communist nor did Mao ever make claim that communism/socialism what was driving the revolution. It was an authoritarian regime from the get-go. It wasn't socialism led into authoritarianism, but that both forces were present in the regime's inception at the same time. The same thing happened in Russia. Look at your analogy. People thought they were buying into something when in reality, an authoritarian regime was there from the get-go. It was under the banner of communism that the autocrats used to galvanize the country. But as I'd said before, so have other calls for change in governance given way to despotic regimes. Despots have arisen out of the calls for nationalism, democracy, freedom... Napoleon Bonaparte became emperor not long after the king's head was removed for the sake of democracy and representation.

Again, communism seeks to repeal the state, not enhance it. It's a basic tenet of communism. If you're a revolutionary who wishes to topple an existing regime only to replace it with one where you're the head who calls all the shots, you can't make a claim to establishing a communist country.

A valid argument is one that suggest that communism is very difficult, if not impossible, to implement. That I will accept and agree with. But there has never been a truly communist country that became autocratic because both were present at the same time.

Edited November 8, 2013 by downzy

[Ace Nova]

But China was never truly communist nor did Mao ever make claim that communism/socialism what was driving the revolution. It was an authoritarian regime from the get-go. It wasn't socialism led into authoritarianism, but that both forces were present in the regime's inception at the same time. The same thing happened in Russia. Look at your analogy. People thought they were buying into something when in reality, an authoritarian regime was there from the get-go. It was under the banner of communism that the autocrats used to galvanize the country. But as I'd said before, so have other calls for change in governance given way to despotic regimes. Despots have arisen out of the calls for nationalism, democracy, freedom... Napoleon Bonaparte became emperor not long after the king's head was removed for the sake of democracy and representation.

Again, communism seeks to repeal the state, not enhance it. It's a basic tenet of communism. If you're a revolutionary who wishes to topple an existing regime only to replace it with one where you're the head who calls all the shots, you can't make a claim to establishing a communist country.

A valid argument is one that suggest that communism is very difficult, if not impossible, to implement. That I will accept and agree with. But there has never been a truly communist country that became autocratic because both were present at the same time.

Again, you're arguing semantics. I have repeatedly stated either communist or under its "guise". Whether it's what Marx intended or philosophically "communist" is completely irrelevant.

"The Communist Party of China (CPC), also known as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), is the founding and ruling political party of the People's Republic of China (PRC). Although nominally it exists alongside the United Front,^[3] a coalition of governing political parties, in practice, the CPC is the only party in the PRC,^[4] maintaining a unitary government and centralizing the state, military, and media.^[5] The legal power of the Communist Party is guaranteed by the national constitution, though due to the Party's Leninist roots, it stands above the law.^[5][6]

The current party leader is Xi Jinping,^[1] who holds the title of General Secretary of the Central Committee.

Since becoming an institution of the state, aside from official commitment to communism and Marxism-Leninism, the party also has de facto unrecognized factions including consumerist and neoliberal figures including business people on the right who effectively support capitalism (although they have been subject to purges and repression in the Cultural Revolution and later, after the 1989 Tiananmen Square Protests), as well as factions on the left that oppose the right in the party, and other factions.^[7]

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_China}

So according to wikipedia and every other encyclopedia on the planet, you're wrong.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Kasanova King

[downzy]

LOL, again, simply calling yourself communist doesn't make you a communist if your policies adhere to neo-liberal market principles.

"Oh, we love communism, but yeah, we don't mind corporations operating within are borders; the ownership of private property is welcomed and encouraged; exploitation of workers to feed the corporate machine will be promoted and tolerated."

They sure sound communist to me.

I suppose we should consider the Nazi Party as socialist in nature since it referred to itself as Nationalist Socialist German Working Party. And maybe we should look at Hosni Mubarak of Egypt as a proponent of democracy, since he represented the National Democratic Party.

Seriously, get past the labels and start evaluating based on how people, parties, and regimes conduct themselves. Your surface level of understanding isn't helping your case.

Edited November 8, 2013 by downzy

[Ace Nova]

LOL, again, simply calling yourself communist doesn't make you a communist if your policies adhere to neo-liberal market principles.

"Oh, we love communism, but yeah, we don't mind corporations operating within are borders; the ownership of private property is welcomed and encouraged; exploitation of workers to feed the corporate machine will be promoted and tolerated."

They sure sound communist to me.

I suppose we should consider the Nazi Party as socialist in nature since it referred to itself as Nationalist Socialist German Working Party. And maybe we should look at Hosni Mubarak of Egypt as a proponent of democracy, since he represented the National Democratic Party.

Seriously, get past the labels and start evaluating based on how people, parties, and regimes conduct themselves. Your surface level of understanding isn't helping your case.

Thank you for validating my entire point. It's about time.

[downzy]

Sorry, you're going to have to repeat your point, because it's been all over the fucking map throughout this entire thread.

[Ace Nova]

Sorry, you're going to have to repeat your point, because it's been all over the fucking map throughout this entire thread.

I'll summarize it all for you because apparently you have severe issues with comprehension.

Post #2:

"All you so called Marxists out there, take heed - this is what absolute "socialism" eventually turns into."

Post #7:

"As for the issues with corporations, there are plenty, I agree. The difference is that people in "free" countries have a choice (as do their governments) on whether or not to do business with these companies. Like you just admitted, people in communist/socialist countries like China don't.

As for Norway and Sweden, although the countries both lean extremely to the left, they aren't completely "socialist"...not in the sense that I'm referring to, anyway."

Post #10:

"The reason we see Communist and Socialism inter mixed is because just like Ayn Rand said, "There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism—by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide."

And I agree with her.

The concepts of both Communism and Socialism sound great on paper - everyone working together for the common good...unfortunately, as dictated by history, these concepts fail miserably on the government level. Part of the problem with Marxism is exactly what you stated - the only way it would (even possibly) work would be without a military, without people having weapons (or ways to create them), etc... and that is impossible this day in age."

Post #14:

"And what? Like I have already stated ad nauseum, just because a country functions via "Market-Leninism" doesn't mean it isn't still "Communist".

Post #18:

"That's exactly what "Socialism" and "Communism" leads to...authoritarian rule. It's always disguised as "socialism" but ends up being authoritarian. History does not tell lies."

Post #20:

"You have completely validated my argument. If China isn't communist by definition that's exactly the problem! Leaders throughout history have given people this fairy tail that "Communism" or "Socialism" is the answer and it always leads to an authoritarian form of government under the guise of socialism. It's almost comical. Like I have stated, history does not tell lies and whenever "Socialism" has been attempted on the government level (or under it's guise) it has always failed."

Post #22:

"Personally, I think a democratic form of socialism (similar to what Sweden and Norway have) isn't bad at all...as long as a strong system of checks and balances remains law.

My main point from the beginning - go back and look at my initial posts in the thread - is that total/absolute socialism leads to authoritarian forms of government. Whether or not that's what Marx intended is irrelevant. Marx had a theory and when it was implemented, it failed. Did it fail because it was implemented poorly and because the people implementing it were corrupt? Maybe - but that's the problem with it!

It has a fatal flaw - it does not have a system of checks and balances preventing it from becoming authoritarian (because of either poor implementation or corruption.)"

Post #32:

"My argument has been exactly the same the entire thread. I quoted Rand because I agree with her - that "communism" the way it has been implemented throughout history, does indeed do that. This isn't that difficult to comprehend.

I've answered every single counter argument/comments in this thread ad nauseum...I'll just copy and paste from now on.... "

Post #34:

"The problem with the fairy tail version (Marx) of Socialism, is that it does not have a system preventing it from becoming corrupted to the level of tyranny, in which we have seen in both WWI and WWII."

Post #37:

"Are you being serious or joking? I really hope you're joking. History = facts. A manifesto = theory. I didn't think I had to specify that I was going by history. EDIT: IN POST #10 IN THIS THREAD I CLEARLY STATED "AS DICTATED BY HISTORY" (You must have missed that) I like to base my arguments around facts not theories. Would you believe a scientist's who's experiment was proven to be wrong? Whether or not it was what the scientist intended is irrelevant. The experiment/theory was not sound enough to prevent it from failing. Period.

And I agree that many have "invoked" its name but betrayed its principles. That is its fatal flaw. It does not have a "backup/emergency" system of checks and balances."

Post #39:

"I'll help you understand...

"But the guy that made that Orange said it would always be an Orange"

"Yep, he did...but it turned into a Banana now"

"But I wanted an Orange!"

"Too bad, Bananas is all we have now and there is nothing you can do about it".

Post #42:

"Apparently you only read what you want to read and must have missed the part where I clearly stated that communism on paper almost seems like a good idea. FOR THE 1OTH AND FINAL TIME, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE "THEORY OF COMMUNISM" WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WAY IT HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED THROUGHOUT HISTORY. And yes, I have stated this from the beginning.

You can argue semantics all you want but my 7 yearold son would have understood what we are talking about by now. Anyone with an IQ above 50 would have understood what we are talking about by now. So I know you understand. And please stop derailing the debate.

Again, with your derailments of the real topic - you can post as many other examples as you want, it does not invalidate anything I have stated about the way communism and socialism have been implemented throughout history - they both have failed... and they have lead to very brutal, authoritarian forms of government. But I will address your other examples the same way I address democratic socialism. They can both work as long as there are systems of checks and balances in place. If there is no system of checks and balances in place, then yes, even democracy can fail.

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."

Post #44:

China had been exploiting people long before it turned itself into a socialist form of a market economy. So nope, can't blame that on capitalism, sorry. As far as the other countries you mentioned, I'm willing to guess that the majority of the blame would be because of corruption in government - not necessarily because of "capitalist entities."

No, actually once a word becomes associated with a certain form of government, entity, etc, eventually that word is what it is. It's that simple. So when 90% of the world regards something as "communist" then that is what it is. Calling them ignorant is ignorant in itself. (And I'm wiling to guess the number is closer to 95% - 98%) Just like 98% of the world calls the U.S. "America"...it is what it is....

Post #50:

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.

Post #64:

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.

Post #68:

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.

Post #71:

"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)."

Post #77:

"I was referring to China as being communist because that's what communism has lead to. I stated that very sentiment in my very first post in this thread. And I also went on to say that if that's what most of the world regards as communist, then that is what it is - whether it's technically accurate or not is irrelevant. The rest of the world still regards them as communists because they know what communism has lead to throughout history.

Time and time again, like I have already stated, socialism or communism starts off under the guise of "Marxism" but leads to absolute power and corruption."

Post #79:

"Farmers throughout the world went out and bought soy seeds. They planted their soy seeds but when the seeds grew, they became corn plants. Time and time again, these farmers went out and bought soy seeds but the seeds kept developing into corn.

Eventually, the farmers stopped calling the seeds soy seeds and just started calling them corn seeds...because that's what they produced."

Ok, so there's just about every major point I've made in this entire thread. Please show me where I've been inconsistent.

I think the only one that's been all over the place in this thread is you - talking in circles.

[ITG]

Chinese person sneaking a piece of paper through that they want everyone to read? I would have assumed it was a menu.

[downzy]

KK, I asked you for what ultimately is your point, and you simply pasted over twenty previously made points that, taken together, don't really make a whole lot of sense.

But from what I can gather, your main assertions are:

a) Communism is evil because it will cause the enslavement of men.

b) Communism is a failed ideology.

c) China is a communist state.

d) Communism is whatever people think it is.

e) Capitalism can not, in any way, be responsible for the exploitation that takes place in both communist countries and capitalist countries.

Am I getting that right?

Anyway, I've got to go out, but I'll be back. If anyone else wants to take a crack at this I'd appreciate some fresh input.

Until then, I think we can both agree with Larry David's assessment:

"A single man in China has more freedom than a married man in America."

Edited November 8, 2013 by downzy

[Chewbacca]

Lately in this forum we've been seeing the terms "communism" and "socialism" thrown around without, I believe, people really understanding the concepts.

At its most basic level, communism is about workers having ownership over the means of production. As opposed to capitalism, which posits that the market (i.e. supply and demand) should shape the means and ownership of production, communism rejects market forces as the determinative factor in how things are made who owns such products.

Communism is not about how a government is organized and how people are ruled. It is about the use of a society's resources; how they are produced and consumed. As one of the comments in the article you posted correctly argues, without communist economic policy it is not communist. China is clearly authoritarian, but it shed its communist ways decades ago.

And no, simply being authoritarian does not make a country communist. They are not mutually agreed upon frameworks.

Show me where in Marxist writings where he advocates that those making decisions get their own army (hint: you won't). A ruling elite having their own military is foreign to any notion of communism in its original form. A highly controlled appointment process and the conducting of a propaganda machine are products of an authoritarian regime and not one necessarily predicated on communism.

I can't speak with utter authority on the subject since it's been a decade since I last studied Marxist philosophy, but any argument that communism is solely a political ideology is completely misplaced. It is far better situated on an economic continuum than a political one.

The reason we see Communist and Socialism inter mixed is because just like Ayn Rand said, ""There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism—by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide."

And I agree with her.

The concepts of both Communism and Socialism sound great on paper - everyone working together for the common good...unfortunately, as dictated by history, these concepts fail miserably on the government level. Part of the problem with Marxism is exactly what you stated - the only way it would (even possibly) work would be without a military, without people having weapons (or ways to create them), etc... and that is impossible this day in age.

And I'll tend to agree with the author (who clearly showed how China is still very much communist) vs. a random person's comment who had no credible evidence backing his statement.

"There is no difference between the principles, policies and practical results of socialism—and those of any historical or prehistorical tyranny. Socialism is merely democratic absolute monarchy—that is, a system of absolutism without a fixed head, open to seizure of power by all corners, by any ruthless climber, opportunist, adventurer, demagogue or thug.

When you consider socialism, do not fool yourself about its nature. Remember that there is no such dichotomy as “human rights” versus “property rights.” No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the “right” to “redistribute” the wealth produced by others is claiming the “right” to treat human beings as chattel."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/socialism.html

And I still agree with her.

Perfect definition.

[Ace Nova]

KK, I asked you for what ultimately is your point, and you simply pasted over twenty previously made points that, taken together, don't really make a whole lot of sense.

But from what I can gather, your main assertions are:

a) Communism is evil because it will cause the enslavement of men.

b) Communism is a failed ideology.

c) China is a communist state.

d) Communism is whatever people think it is.

e) Capitalism can not, in any way, be responsible for the exploitation that takes place in both communist countries and capitalist countries.

Am I getting that right?

Anyway, I've got to go out, but I'll be back. If anyone else wants to take a crack at this I'd appreciate some fresh input.

Until then, I think we can both agree with Larry David's assessment:

"A single man in China has more freedom than a married man in America."

More like this:

A. Communism, as it has been implemented throughout the history of the world, has proven to lead to brutal, authoritarian regimes.

B. Communism, as it has been implemented, has been proven to fail.

C. China is communist. Maybe not as you envision communism to be... but yes, they are still communist.

D. There are several text book definitions of communism. They are:

a : a theory advocating elimination of private property

b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

The others are (which fit China and the Soviet Union):

2

capitalized

a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism

So the majority of the planet seems to think that China fits the 3rd and 4th definitions and I agree with them. Who are you to say that Merriam-Webster, along with the majority of the world, is wrong?

E. I think the subject of capitalism and whether or not it's completely at fault or at fault at all, (in reference to exploitation) is extremely relative and I would never make such a generalization. I think I almost said that same exact sentence 20 posts ago. And I also stated that this was another failed attempt at you derailing the real topic.

As far as Larry David's assessment...well....

Edited November 11, 2013 by Kasanova King

[downzy]

The problem with your assessment, again, is that you're using a very simple and somewhat shallow concept of what communism is. Very few in the scholarly world, i.e. those who actually study different forms of economic organization, would ever refer to what's practiced in China as communism. Simply arbitrarily picking the most broad understanding of communism to fit your argument does not necessarily validate your argument. Because something is called communism that means it is communism. Likewise, simply because a regime shares a few traits that are also found in communist countries does not make it a communist country. Let me elaborate.

Even using the definition you posted above, it instantly negates your argument that China is communist. China neither eliminates private property nor does it institute a system where goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed. So that's a big strike one. Your second definition doesn't fit either since the Chinese government does not, in any way, practice the teachings of Marxism or Marxist-Leninism in any way. Marxism calls for the instant elimination of the state and the ownership of production be given to the workers, while Marxist-Leninism calls for a temporary transition government that facilitates a country into a communist state with the goal of eventual dismissal of the party/government. Neither of those conditions exist in China today (unless it's taking it's sweet ass time about transitioning over to a non-state arrangement). So out of four possible definitions, China fails to reach three of them.

The only part of your definition that fits is the totalitarian aspect with one party rule, but like I said, that trait manifests itself in many other governments - none of which anyone would consider communist. So why do you cling to this one aspect to defend your notion that China is still a communist country? It follows neither the political aspects of communism and has rejected the very core economic model that is the essence of communism. It's only shared characteristic with other current and previous communist regimes is its autocratic command structure - but countries like Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and many countries in Africa also fit that description. Should they too be all considered communist?

As I said earlier, your argument would be far more consistent if you simply acknowledged that China no longer practices communism. If you look at the economic gains that China has made in the last 30 years, a lot of it has to do with opening up its economy to market forces. The drastic drop in poverty rates has corresponded with the country embracing a market economy. If you still believe that China is a communist country, why has it been out performing every other nation in the last few decades economically (it's had the fastest economic growth than any other country in the last 30 years)? You cannot reconcile these two positions: china is a communist country; communism is a failed economic model. The fact that China has gone from a backwater state only thirty years ago to the second largest economy in the world makes those two propositions incompatible.

Let's recall the OP's purpose of this thread. He posted an image of handwritten note that brings attention to the exploitative working conditions that he and his fellow workers face in China. Your first post, a quote from Rand, attributed this exploitation to communist ideology (and if you go back and actually read the quote, Rand never once contextualizes how she sees communism. Unlike yourself, she views enslavement as a principle of communism, and not a matter of implementation problems - though I take it you disagree with that aspect of Rand's argument). My only point is that exploitation takes place in many countries that practice capitalism. Since capitalist forces are present with China, why are you so quick to blame communism in this case?

Moreover, unbridled capitalism, as favoured by Rand, demands a free and unregulated market where worker protection laws are viewed as antithetical to market forces. The history of America, the champion of capitalism, can - and often has been - told through the prism of exploitation (natives, african americans, immigrants, blue-collar workers, etc.). To suggest that exploitation is only a product of communism (whether we're taking about its theoretical implications or how those who have championed it have perverted its purpose for creating a new authoritative regime) is myopic considering the well documented association exploitation has had with capitalism. That is the point of the thread, as I understand it, and is why I raise the question over why exploitation is associated only with communism (in a country that doesn't actually practice communism) when capitalist forces seem just as responsible for such exploitation.

[wasted]

I have found you can find happiness in slavery.

The poets would have you believe its the only place.

Nothing as sexy as police state. No your not special shut up and march... to buy a double mcwhopper with cheese.

[Ace Nova]

@ downzy

Really? I willing to wager anything you want I can post more references (than you can, showing otherwise) from "scholars" (and real world scenarios) showing that China is still much closer to being communist than any other form of government. In theory, you might have a point but unfortunately, in practice, that is absolutely not what is currently happening in China. You hit the nail on the head when you said, "(unless it's taking it's sweet ass time about transitioning over to a non-state arrangement).

I've spoken to several close associates, whom I work with, that were born and raised in China. They specifically said, although it is better than the past, it is still, very much communist. They went on to (basically) say that there are two types of classes in China - the elite....and everyone else. In order to become "elite" you're either working for the government or you have strong connections to government officials. (Or you're part of the Chinese Mafia...which within the last few years, the Chinese government, seems to be taking that over as well). Same thing goes for owning property or a business...basically, if you're not "connected" to the government, you don't own shit.

You can talk theory until you're blue in the face but you will not win this argument.

Who knows, maybe if things continue at this pace, maybe in 10 -15 years, you might actually have a point but as of now, you're just making yourself look silly. (Writing in an eloquent manner and using thought provoking wording will not help your cause, )

My main point, from my very first post in this thread, is this is what communism/absolute socialism leads to.

If you think a nation where 71% of the population lives on less than $5 per day is a "success" then you are out of your mind.

Your argument that China is the fastest growing economy over the last 30 years and therefore it's no longer communist and is a successful nation, is the same as the blind leading the blind.

Let me give you an example for clarification purposes. It's much easier for the 30th ranked football team to become the 25th ranked football team than it is for the 4th ranked football team to win the world championship. So would you say that the 25th ranked football team is now a "success" because it moved up in the rankings faster than the 4th ranked team? No, only a fool would say so... because it's still ranked 25th and it could take years (if ever) before it even contends to win the world championship.

Please point out where I stated that exploitation is unique to communism or socialism. Please do, I'd like to see it.

You keep spinning the topic in order to save face in this debate - in which you cannot win - because my entire argument is based on historical facts, evidence and real-world scenarios... while your argument is based on opinion and theory.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Kasanova King

[Ace Nova]

Extremely left seriously man? I like you but you got to see the World a bit more.. I thought you were a well-travelled man

That's in reference to being democratically (extremely) left of center. AKA - very progressive. I haven't done specific research on Scandinavian nations (and I've never been there) but from my understanding, (and from what members from Scandinavian countries have spoken about in this forum) that is my impression. You have my apologies if I'm wrong.

Edited November 10, 2013 by Kasanova King

[downzy]

@ downzy

Really? I willing to wager anything you want I can post more references (than you can, showing otherwise) from "scholars" (and real world scenarios) showing that China is still much closer to being communist than any other form of government. In theory, you might have a point but unfortunately, in practice, that is absolutely not what is currently happening in China. You hit the nail on the head when you said, "(unless it's taking it's sweet ass time about transitioning over to a non-state arrangement).

I've spoken to several close associates, whom I work with, that were born and raised in China. They specifically said, although it is better than the past, it is still, very much communist. They went on to (basically) say that there are two types of classes in China - the elite....and everyone else. In order to become "elite" you're either working for the government or you have strong connections to government officials. (Or you're part of the Chinese Mafia...which within the last few years, the Chinese government, seems to be taking that over as well). Same thing goes for owning property or a business...basically, if you're not "connected" to the government, you don't own shit.

You can talk theory until you're blue in the face but you will not win this argument.

Who knows, maybe if things continue at this pace, maybe in 10 -15 years, you might actually have a point but as of now, you're just making yourself look silly. (Writing in an eloquent manner and using thought provoking wording will not help your cause, )

My main point, from my very first post in this thread, is this is what communism/absolute socialism leads to.

If you think a nation where 71% of the population lives on less than $5 per day is a "success" then you are out of your mind.

Your argument that China is the fastest growing economy over the last 30 years and therefore it's no longer communist and is a successful nation, is the same as the blind leading the blind.

Let me give you an example for clarification purposes. It's much easier for the 30th ranked football team to become the 25th ranked football team than it is for the 4th ranked football team to win the world championship. So would you say that the 25th ranked football team is now a "success" because it moved up in the rankings faster than the 4th ranked team? No, only a fool would say so... because it's still ranked 25th and it could take years (if ever) before it even contends to win the world championship.

Please point out where I stated that exploitation is unique to communism or socialism. Please do, I'd like to see it.

You keep spinning the topic in order to save face in this debate - in which you cannot win - because my entire argument is based on historical facts, evidence and real-world scenarios... while your argument is based on opinion and theory.

So I go away for the weekend and expect to return to more exaggerations, anecdotal evidence, hyperbole and hubris. I'm being honest here when I say that your post brings a smile to my face...

Where to begin? I know, how about back at the beginning (especially helpful for those who are just tuning in). The purpose of this thread, as I understand it, was to highlight an instance of oppression and exploitation that has taken place in China. The very first response to the OP's post came from you KK, which sought to lay the responsibility of this exploitation on communism. Why else would you post a quotation by Rand if not to argue that such an example of exploitation and oppression was the consequence of communism. So let's map out this argument and see where and why it does not hold up to scrutiny.

I asked you why you believe that communism, whether in theory or in practice, is directly responsible for this, or any, instance of exploitation when corporate and capitalistic forces are rampant in China (both in theory and in practice). Your response was that history has proven that communism (as it has been practice, not simply in theory) has been proven to be a failure, that China is indicative of a communist regime - and thus a failed regime, and that this failure results in human enslavement, which this instance of exploitation, as highlighted by the OP, was an example of. In other words, the fact that China is communist has led to this kind of exploitation.

So in order for this conclusion to be true, a few conditions would have to be satisfied.

First, you would have to show that China is indeed a communist regime. Just so we weren't talking past each other (which we did for a couple of pages), I asked you for your definition of communism (since you clearly rejected my definition, which was based on the expressed teachings of Karl Marx, you know, the guy who invented the economic/philosophy). You responded with a definition directly from Websters dictionary, which included four conditions: i) the elimination of private property, ii) a system in which common goods are owned in common and available to all as needed, iii) a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism, iv) and a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production.

We both agree that China meets the fourth criteria: it has a totalitarian system of governance ruled by a single authoritarian party (but, this too is even a bit of a generalization, since the grip of the governing party in China loosens dramatically the further one gets away from the central core of government, but whatever, I'll give this one to you). So it satisfies one of four requirements. As I noted earlier, simply meeting this totalitarian - one rule party standard does not render China a communist regime, since many other nations operate under similar conditions without being considered communist.

Since you didn't bother any real defense of conditions two and three (common goods, doctrine based on Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism), I'm forced to assume that you actually have no grounds to consider China communist based on those two conditions. Sure, you suggested that China is still in a transitory state, which would meet the Marxism-Leninism standard, but considering China is moving more and more towards a market-based economic model and away from a centrally planned economy, I can't see how this transition would ever lead to a fully formed communist economic model where private goods are outlawed and the state itself is dissolved. I mean, if Marxist-Leninism calls for party to oversee this transition, then those ruling China aren't doing very well under such a doctrine since they have moved the country towards a market economy (and just so we're clear, a market economy is defined by Websters dictionary as one in which which prices are based on competition among private businesses and not controlled by a government).

So if you're keeping score at home, that means out of the four conditions for a regime to be considered communist, China has met one and failed two. Now, on the final condition: elimination of private property.

By your own admission, you acknowledge that private property does indeed exist in China. I respect the fact that your Chinese friends suggest that property ownership are owned by only the lucky few who have connections to government (whether they work in government or knows someone in government). Also, you argue that property ownership also exists within the Chinese mafia. While I do think there is a ring of truth to what they say, it doesn't address the many aspects of how far China has come in allowing private property.

First, agricultural production has largely been privatized since the late 1970s, as private ownership of farms have become commonplace ("some agricultural production occurred on state farms where workers received regular wages, like factory workers. State farms were mostly found on the fringes of the main agricultural areas, especially on newly reclaimed land and particularly in the northeast, where they nevertheless accounted for only about 4 percent of total cultivated land. Most of the economic activity in rural areas took place within the context of collectively and privately owned enterprises").

Second, and most obviously, property rights are enshrined in China's constitution (oops, guess you and your friends didn't think to look that one up ). Article 13 of Amendment Four of the Chinese constitution states: "The lawful private property of citizens shall be inviolable. The country shall protect in accordance with law citizens' private property rights and inheritance rights. The country may, as necessitated by public interest, expropriate or requisition citizen’s private property and pay compensation therefor." Property rights were even further codified in 2007, when the National People's Congress passed the Property Law of the People's Republic of China, which defines the various forms of property in China.

Third, private businesses in China have grown exponentially in the last 30 years. As of 2008, there existed over 30 million private businesses in China. How do you have that many private businesses operating in a country that's suppose to be communist? I thought communism outlawed domestic private businesses?

So let's provide a quick review before continuing. The regime in China does not eliminate private property, is not based on a system of public goods which are owned in common, and does not promote the doctrine of Marxism or Marxist-Leninism. So based on the definition of communism that you provided KK, China only meets three of the four conditions. And as I mentioned before, simply being a totalitarian state with one party rule does not make China communist since it would require us to look at countries like Iran, Saudia Arabia, and most countries in Africa as communist - which nobody of sound mind would ever do.

At this point I could very well conclude. Since having proven that China is not currently communist (either in practice or in theory) according the definition you provided, your argument does not hold up to scrutiny. But I'm having fun (weird, I know right?), so let's continue examining the other components of your argument.

So for argument sake, let's assume that you were somehow able to demonstrate that China is indeed still a communist country (even though we just demonstrated such an assumption is unfounded). You've claimed that regimes that are viewed as communist (regardless of whether they are following the communist ideology or not) are failures. And as a result of this failure, or perhaps indicative of this failure, exploitation of workers as we see in the OP's post is a natural consequence. So let's examine the only reason you give for why China, as a supposed communist country, is a failure: poverty. According to your arbitrary reasoning, any nation with high rates of poverty is automatically viewed as failed state. Never mind the fact that the Failed State Index, which is viewed by most academic and journalist as the definitive assessment regarding failed states, outlines twelve criteria for determining the effectiveness of states. According to you, for reasons that can only be considered arbitrary at this point, you feel that the rate of poverty is the only pertinent factor in determining whether a state is failed or not from an economic standpoint. So let's examine the one statistic you've included to support your argument.

To begin with, the statistics that you have provided illustrate that as of 2008 (which, let's be fair, isn't that recent), 13.1 percent of China's population lives on less than $1.25 a day. Furthermore, nearly 72 percent of China's population lives on less than $5 a day. On the surface of it, it does look bad. I mean, $5 a day to live on really isn't much, right? Well, let's put these numbers into context to see how China fairs relative to other states and also what living on $5 a day really means in China.

First, if China is considered a failed state because 13.1 percent of its population lives on less than $1.25 a day, then does that mean that the 64 countries who have higher percentages are also failed states? That would mean that countries like South Africa, Bolivia, India, Indonesia, Honduras, Philippines, Bangladesh, Laos, and Kenya are also failed states (among the 55 others). So in your estimation, does that mean that one-third of all nations on the planet are failed states? I don't have a ranking for China in terms of population making less than $5 a day, but considering it's ranked 61st on the World Bank's list for citizens living on $2 a day, I'm going to assume that the country holds a similar ranking for the $5 a day benchmark.

Second, if you've traveled to many places you'll know that a dollar can mean a lot more in one country than it can in another country. The cost of similar items can vary wildly. So perhaps the assumption that $5 a day isn't a lot of money simply because it's not in the U.S. might be a foolish proposition when considering the costs of goods in places like China. Living in the United States on $5 a day would be next to impossible, turns out in China it's far easier (though I doubt anyone would want to do it). When factoring in the actual cost of living one begins to put these numbers into context. Turns out that the CIA uses a different assessment when considering poverty. Rather than consider absolute values, it examines how poverty rates are determined domestically and ranks countries on this basis. According to the CIA fact book, the poverty rate for China is 13.4 percent in 2010. What about the U.S.? Actually, according to the CIA, poverty in the U.S. stands at 15.1 percent. According to your own CIA, the rate of poverty in the U.S. is actually worse than it is in China. Sure, I'll be the first one to admit the benchmark for poverty is a relative proposition and what China considers poverty to be is a drastically lower benchmark than it should be. But it has to be acknowledged that simply stating that because 71 percent of China's population lives on $5 a day doesn't mean that they're utterly poor since the prices they would pay for basic commodities is drastically lower than what poor people in the U.S. pay. Also consider the fact that no developing nation compares to China with respect to lowering its poverty rate over the past 30 years. It is currently on pace to eliminate poverty by 2020 and has been commended by the UN for its efforts. Not bad for a failed communist regime, right?

As we can see, the sole statistic you use to support your argument that China is a failed state doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Moreover, it's simply one micro-economic statistic. It can't be the only factor in determining a nation's economic health, can it? Consider that China is currently the world's largest trading partner. Its holdings in foreign reserves are bigger than any other country. It is the third largest recipient of foreign-direct investment (FDI). Apparently you know something major corporations don't know since if China is a failed state, why are so many multinational companies investing their billions there? Currently China has 61 spots on the Fortune 500. Moreover, when measured by revenue, three of the top ten most valuable companies in the world are Chinese. Finally, when one considers purchasing power (the number of goods or services that can be purchased with a unit of currency), China just surpassed the United States.

Finally, let's even assume that for whatever God-forsaken reason you still wanted to believe that China is still communist and despite all of its recent economic success is still a failed state. Okay, but how do you then attribute the OP's example of exploitation to communism? As I mentioned before, China does permit corporations (products of capitalism) to operate within its borders. What direct evidence do you have that it is indeed the Chinese "communist" government that is responsible for this (or any other) example of exploitation and not the corporate entities that own and operate the factory? The common denominator of exploitation isn't communist rule - it's usually the presence of multinational corporations (as seen in Thailand, Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc).

As we've covered, exploitation takes place all over the world - capitalist countries included (even in America!). Where exactly have you shown causation between communism and this instance of exploitation? Even if you were to somehow ignore everything I've written in this post, simply asserting the China is communist doesn't prove causation. At most it shows a correlation, but you don't need me to tell you that correlation is not equal to causation. But since you have not proven China to be communist (even by your own definition of what communism is), have failed to demonstrate how it is an example of another failed communist state, and have failed to illustrate evidence with regards to causation, I don't see how in any way you can still maintain your position.

And btw, just because you keep saying, "you've lost the debate" doesn't make it so. It's been my experience that those who feel the need to keep repeating phrases like "I've won the debate," or "you've lost the argument" do so only to convince themselves. Generally, those who let their arguments do the talking generally fair better in such exchanges.

Edited November 11, 2013 by downzy

[Ace Nova]

@ downzy

I admire your tenacity and thanks for taking the time to write out a well thought out response. Unfortunately, after reading through the entire short story , I've come to the conclusion that all you are doing is talking in circles...again. But you clarified a few things and I respect that.

Ok, point #1. As for the exploitation of people because of communism - let's just assume you're correct in saying that China is no longer communist (You're not and I will show you how later). I am assuming that since we have been talking about whether China still is or is not communist in this entire thread, it's fair to say that at the very least, you would agree that China was at one point communist, correct? I believe you made a reference to China actually being communist during the reign of Mao, correct?

Since I have based my entire argument on facts, historical evidence, scholarly opinion, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and real world scenarios, etc, I will do the same here. To follow is an article written in the L.A. Times in 1994 - the facts and scenarios in the article were given to the LA Times by exiled Chinese Historians and Scholars. (I really don't think you can get a better reference than that).

The article is a good read but rather lengthy so I will only post a few paragraphs.

...."Gong is among a new wave of scholars and intellectuals, both Western and Chinese, who believe modern Chinese history needs rewriting. While the focus of many books and articles today is on China’s successful economic reforms, dramatic new figures for the number of people who died as a result of Mao Tse-tung’s policies are surfacing, along with horrifying proof of cannibalism during the Cultural Revolution. It is now believed that as many as 60 million to 80 million people may have died because of Mao’s policies-making him responsible for more deaths than Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin combined."

"Chen believes that, from the Communist takeover in 1949 through the landlord and intellectual purges of the 1950s, the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution and the prison system, at least 80 million met unnatural deaths."

"Harry Wu remembers the Great Famine. During its worst year, 1960, after he graduated from college, he was arrested for speaking out at a Communist Party Youth League meeting. He spent 19 years in China’s labor-reform camps. Wu is a resident scholar at Stanford University who published an account of his ordeal in the book Bitter Winds last year. He recalls eating rats and snakes during the famine to supplement his prison rations, and burying countless fellow inmates who starved to death."

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/china/deaths2.html

Downzy, would you like to tell these Chinese Scholars, who lived through the atrocities of communism, that communism does not exploit people? Please, go tell them that it's all, "exaggerations, anecdotal evidence, hyperbole and hubris". Maybe I was wrong in saying that communism just exploits people...it's much, much worse.

According to Wikipedia (which seems to be your favorite point of reference ):

"...Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million.^[1] Scholarship focuses on the causes of mass killings in single societies, though some claims of common causes for mass killings have been made. Some higher estimates of mass killings include not only mass murders or executions that took place during the elimination of political opponents, civil wars, terror campaigns, and land reforms, but also lives lost due to war, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labor camps. There are scholars who believe that government policies and mistakes in management contributed to these calamities, and, based on that conclusion combine all these deaths under the categories "mass killings", democide, politicide, "classicide", or loosely defined genocide. According to these scholars, the total death toll of the mass killings defined in this way amounts to many tens of millions..."

The highest death tolls that have been documented in communist states occurred in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. The estimates of the number of non-combatants killed by these three regimes alone range from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million.^{[2][dubious – discuss]} There have also been killings on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries.

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

Denying that communism (as it was implemented in China and Russia) exploits people is the same (or worse) as denying the holocaust. You're not a holocaust denialist, are you?

Ok, now that I have shown how communism not only exploits people, it flat out exterminates them by the tens of millions, let's move on to your other points.

You have completely "spun" Webster's definition of communism by combining FOUR separate definitions and stating that communism must meet all four criteria in order for it to be considered communism. WRONG. Possibly I was partially at fault because I too combined the 3rd and 4th definitions into one...I have gone back and corrected my mistake.

According to the 3rd and 4th definitions of communism:

a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production

And since when does a definition from a dictionary need to meet all points in order to be considered as such?? Dictionaries separate individual definitions of a word. What that means is that a word can meet all or as little as ONE definition of the word to be considered as such. So since you have already admitted that currently China meets at least ONE of these definitions, then you agree that China is still communist. (I think it meets at least 2 but that's irrelevant) Thank You for finally seeing the light.

As far as your point in quoting Chinese law, how can you now refer to law as being factual when few posts ago you stated that the law didn't matter... the real truth is... what is practiced? Double standard, maybe? When I pointed out to you the Chinese law, that showed that you were technically inaccurate in assuming that China had no military conscription, you quickly brushed it aside stating although it may have been "law", it clearly was not practiced or enforced. And I agreed with you...stating how silly it was to argue semantics. And I agree with you...again...Chinese law is one thing, what is practiced is another...and we both have given plenty of evidence showing this is true. I'm glad we can agree again.

Let's talk about China and whether or not it's a failed state. After doing some calculations, I have determined that close to 80% (or more) of the wealth (in terms of GDP) is either owned, controlled, or connected to the Chinese government. (If that's not communist, nothing is...but we've already agreed that China is communist, so no big deal). So when 72%+ or more of the population lives on less than $5 per day and the other 28% owns 80% of the GDP (and is connected to the government)....then not only is China communist, it is still a brutal, totalitarian regime....and yes, it has failed its people.

As far as your other point in reference to $5 being "enough" to live on in China...although I find it barely credible, let's say you're right. When can a person that lives on $5 per day leave the country and see the world? Or better yet, when can that person even go out and see their own country? NEVER. If that's not modern day slavery, nothing is.

And please stop misquoting me. I never said "I won the debate" or "you lost the debate"....I stated this is a debate you cannot win because I am basing my argument on historical facts, evidence, real world scenarios, etc....and all you're (still) doing, is at best, giving your opinion and quoting theory.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Kasanova King

[Snake-Pit]

It's like a I need a degree to read my own threads, fuck...

[downzy]

@ downzy

I admire your tenacity and thanks for taking the time to write out a well thought out response. Unfortunately, after reading through the entire short story , I've come to the conclusion that all you are doing is talking in circles...again. But you clarified a few things and I respect that.

Talking in circles would be reiterating the same point but in different ways or extenuating each and every issue related to the discussion. Neither of which am I doing. What I'm doing is litigating your argument by pointing out where it fails to examination and highlighting flaws in its logic and assumptions. I have examined your argument using your own boundaries of discussion to illustrate the point that your understanding of political ideologies, current geopolitical realities, and various forms macro-economic systems is skin deep that relies far too much on labels.

Ok, point #1. As for the exploitation of communism, let's just assume you're correct in saying that China is no longer communist (You're not and I will show you how later). I am assuming that since we have been talking about whether China still is or is not communist in this entire thread, it's fair to say that at the very least, you would agree that China was at one point communist, correct? I believe you made a reference to China actually being communist during the reign of Mao, correct?

I would say it's fair to say that China has had periods that followed communist dogma far closer than it has in the past thirty years (the Chinese economy in no way represents a command economy, which is central to how communism has been practice since its inception). Would I say that China under Mao practiced communism as it was envisioned in theory by Marx. Absolutely not. And this is where I come back to your continual use of the term "absolute communist." If a country was "absolutely communist," it wouldn't be authoritarian since communism was designed to free workers from their exploitative bourgeoisie employers. What has been practiced under the name of communism has been a perversion of communism. You continually state that communism leads to authoritarianism. And that may very well be the case. But in order for that hypothesis to be correct, you would have to demonstrate a historical case where the actual practicing of communism existed first without the presence of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism cannot be a consequence of communism if authoritarianism was present the minute the revolution began. So your "leads to" prognosis fails to present any evidence of this ever happening. Something tells me you've read Orwell's Animal Farm one too many times; that you believe that Russian and Chinese workers were at some point experience a truly communist system, which led to their eventual prosecution and oppression. But such totalitarian characteristics were rooted from the get-go. So to say that communism leads to authoritarianism is to ignore that revolutionary leaders were authoritarian from the beginning. It is accurate to say that revolutions that invoke the cause of communism have lead to authoritarianism. But to say that "absolute communism" precipitates a totalitarian state is factually incorrect. Unless, of course, you can provide one instance where communism, as it was prescribed by Marx, ever took hold prior to the state becoming totalitarian.

Since I have based my entire argument on facts, historical evidence, scholarly opinion, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and real world scenarios, etc, I will do the same here. To follow is an article written in the L.A. Times in 1994 - the facts and scenarios in the article were given to the LA Times by exiled Chinese Historians and Scholars. (I really don't think you can get a better reference than that).

The article is a good read but rather lengthy so I will only post a few paragraphs.

Yeah, and that's all well and good, but the argument hasn't been that communism, as it has been "practiced" by China during its history, has led to exploitation, oppression, and persecution. That's not what we've been talking about (or at least what I've been talking about). My own argument has been that any attempts to hold communism responsible for the exploitation found in the OP's present day example of exploitation (workers fired for wanting to stretch) is illogical. In no way would I ever argue that millions of Chinese did not face exploitation during the despotic regime of Mao. The OP started a thread about a present day instance of exploitation and oppression and your first response was, well, this is what you get when you embrace communism. The problem with that assessment was that since China is communist in name only, that due to its transition to a market economy with greater participation by multinational corporations, there is no conceivable way to place the blame on this one instance of exploitation on communism, whether in practice or in theory. If this instance of exploitation took place in 1957, sure no one would challenge that communism, as is was being practiced (even if it's a perversion of what communism is), is responsible for this particular instance of exploitation. But it isn't 1957. It's 2013, where almost nobody would argue that modern day corporations aren't major players in China's economy. Again, my only point here was that there are too many fingerprints on this crime to pinpoint culpability. The example of exploitation as described by the OP can be found in many other countries - so to quickly ascribe fault to China simply because you perceive it to be communist is illogical.

Downzy, would you like to tell these Chinese Scholars, who lived through the atrocities of communism, that communism does not exploit people? Please, go tell them that it's all, "exaggerations, anecdotal evidence, hyperbole and hubris". Maybe I was wrong in saying that communism just exploits people...it's much, much worse.

According to Wikipedia (which seems to be your favorite point of reference ):

Why would I do that when that's not what I've been talking about. Or have you not be paying attention? But if I were to speak to them, i would advise them that what Mao purported China to be and what it really was were two completely different things. Mao did not, at any point, actually put into practice communism. There were aspects of communism that were implemented by Mao, but in now way was China a model for communism as envisioned by those who devised the plan. Nor did Mao even claim that communism was the sole philosophical foundation for how he organized the Chinese economy.

As for why I source wikipedia more often, it's because it is a source that you can at least access. Most of the academic journals that I use to read (I'll admit, it's been awhile) are behind the University of Toronto's student login wall. While my own academic focus was on American politics, particularly voter partisanship and family relations, I did take a few Chinese history courses and did write a 20 page paper about the potential geopolitical consequences of China and the U.S. using regional trade regimes to further and protect their interests (the gist: can the U.S. involvement in the Trans-Pacific Partnership counterbalance China's growing clout within ASEAN?). By the way, I'm curious what your educational background is that backstops your insights into China? Have you taken history classes on China? Did you graduate university with a degree in political science? Have you even been to China?

You have completely "spun" Webster's definition of communism by combining FOUR separate definitions and stating that communism must meet all four criteria in order for it to be considered communism. WRONG. Possibly I was partially at fault because I too combined the 3rd and 4th definitions into one...I have gone back and corrected my mistake.

According to the 3rd and 4th definitions of communism:

a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production

And since when does a definition from a dictionary need to meet all points in order to be considered as such?? Dictionaries separate individual definitions of a word. What that means is that a word can meet all or as little as ONE definition of the word to be considered as such. So since you have already admitted that currently China meets at least ONE of these definitions, then you agree that China is still communist. (I think it meets at least 2 but that's irrelevant) Thank You for finally seeing the light.

If I said that anything with a wheel was a car, would you agree with me? How about if I said that all items made with fabric should be considered a t-shirt. Agree with me there? Because that's essentially what you're doing here. There is obviously a standard or baseline in which we consider something to be a car or a t-shirt. You need water to make lemonade, but just because you have water doesn't make it lemonade without the other ingredients. Simply having wheels or fabric as components does not render such items cars or t-shirts, respectively. The same exists with the baseline for what is considered communism (whether it actually adheres to communist theory or not). Yes, China is a totalitarian oligarchy that rules with authoritarian control. Iran, Saudia Arabia, Egypt (prior to the Arab Spring), Zimbabwe - all countries who operate under totalitarian control. I assume you can follow simple Boolean logic. By your logic, if totalitarianism/authoritarianism equals communism, then all totalitarian/authoritarian states must be communist. But such logic fails when one considers the many totalitarian/authoritarian regimes that are not considered communist. So no, I do not accept your obtuse sense of logic with respect to communism. Totalitarianism/authoritarianism is simply a component of what many consider communism to be. In no way is it the determinative factor.

As far as your point in quoting Chinese law, how can you now refer to law as being factual when few posts ago you stated that the law didn't matter... the real truth is... what is practiced?

Interesting. So you ask the question without bother to answer it. Why? You state that we have both found evidence showing this is true. What's true? The fact that both Chinese citizens and foreigners own property in China? Yes. You're right, I have found evidence that private property does exist and is far more commonplace than you're willing to acknowledge.

I challenged your position on conscription since more Americans have been conscripted into active military combat than Chinese citizens in the last 50 years. Can you do the same with respect to showing that private property doesn't exist in the real world? No, you can't, since private property can be easily located in both in China's constitution and its economy. I thought the fact that 96 percent of China's agriculture comes from private plots would be enough to satisfy this claim. Moreover, the fact that there are over 30 million private businesses would likely lead one to believe that private property exists. Okay, how about real estate listings. Here's a website that features apartments for sale in Beijing. Here's another. And another.

Let's talk about China and whether or not it's a failed state. After doing some calculations, I have determined that close to 80% (or more) of the wealth (in terms of GDP) is either owned, controlled, or connected to the Chinese government. (If that's not communist, nothing is...but we've already agreed that China is communist, so no big deal). So when 72%+ or more of the population lives on less than $5 per day and the other 28% owns 80% of the GDP (and is connected to the government)....then not only is China communist, it is still a brutal, totalitarian regime....and yes, it has failed its people.

Sorry, where did we agree that China is currently communist? Show me exactly where I agreed to that. I agreed to the fact that China is an authoritarian state, but as I just covered, that doesn't render it communist. Unless of course you're arguing that nations like Iran and Saudia Arabia are communist countries as well? Is that what you're saying?

Apparently you do not understand the concept of purchasing power (obviously not an economics student). $5 in China is not equivalent to $5 in the U.S. It's the same reason why people living in West Virginia who do the same jobs as those living in New York City don't make the same income. The cost of living is far lower in China than it is in West Virginia. I feel like I have to be careful with this concept since you seem to be having difficulties understanding it. If it costs more to live in one place over another, it generally means you must make more in that more expensive place.

Like I posted in my previous post, why is it that you're only using poverty to determine whether China is a failed state or not? The authoritative index on failed states lists twelve different variables when determining whether a state has failed or not. Why would anyone just choose one criteria unless it's simply to stubbornly support an untenable position? I mean, wouldn't home ownership be another good indicator of state efficacy? If far more citizens of a particular state were able to own their own homes than another state, one would have to assume that that first state is doing a better job for its citizens in that respect. Well, according to the most recent statistics, home ownership in China is 90 percent - a full 25 percent higher than in the United States. It is not my intention to argue that China is a better state than the U.S. with respect to its citizens, but considering that China actually does a better job with respect to housing its citizens than the United States, it's a far stretch to argue that China is a failed state. Moreover, if 90 percent of Chinese citizens own their own homes, then I guess making $5 a day isn't all that bad all things considered.

As far as your other point in reference to $5 being "enough" to live on in China...although I find it barely credible, let's say you're right. When can a person that lives on $5 per day leave the country and see the world? Or better yet, when can that person even go out and see their own country? NEVER. If that's not modern day slavery, nothing is.

This point actually made me laugh out loud, since you seem to believe that people living at or below the poverty line in the U.S. can afford to travel outside the United States. Do you honestly think that a person making minimum wage flipping burgers at McDonalds has the income to travel the world and see the sights? Do you think many of these people have the money to even see the rest of the U.S.? How many people making minimum wage are traveling to Disney? LOL - you're hilarious.

Look, perhaps you simply misunderstood my original point. I have never once claimed that communism (as it has been practiced) does not produce instances of exploitation, oppression, and enslavement. I have, however, stated that such suffering is an anathema to what communism espouses. The very fact that communism was devised as a response to the vast exploitation of workers would counter any argument that it calls for the enslavement of human beings by force (you know, what Rand said). My particular gripe was with the example of exploitation provided by the OP. Yes, there is exploitation in modern day China, but it cannot be attributed to communism since China does not function as a communist regime. My argument is not, has never been, that all instances of repression and exploitation are not the responsibility of the supposedly communist government of China. So bringing up instances of persecution during Mao's rule is besides the point. The number of attrocities during Mao's rule is undeniable. But the example of exploitation provided by the OP didn't happen during Mao's rule did it? And one can't deny that China has changed drastically since Deng Xiaoping took over. Find me one viable and educated person who would still argue that China is has a command economy.

Like I said in my previous post, you haven't proven causation. An example of exploitation was provided by the OP and you instantly attributed it to communism. But you haven't provided any evidence for establishing such a relationship. You've simply stated that China is communist and communism is responsible for this example of exploitation. But since China operates as a communist regime in name only (something nobody but yourself and our pot for brains OP agrees upon), it's absurd to blame this one particular instance of exploitation on communism. For causality to be attributed to an entity that entity must be present. Since communism isn't present in China, it's foolish to attribute the cause of this particular instance of exploitation to it.

[Ace Nova]

@ Downzy

It's painfully obvious that you have been basing your argument around the writings of Karl Marx and his "utopian" vision for socialism/communism. And I have already stated ad nauseum that I was basing my argument from real world scenarios. For some reason, we keep coming back to this same exact debate....over....and over....and over again. If this isn't talking in circles, I don't know what is. It's borderline insane, actually.

Now, you've taken it a step further and have come up with a whopper - doubting that China was ever "truly" communist, even under Mao. This shows that you have a very narrow and (borderline) ignorant view and understanding of communism. Maybe you only read the parts of Marxist theory that dealt with the "utopian" society aspect of socialism but the first part clearly states in the beginning there will be a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". And that sounds all honky dory....except historically, the proletariat has always elected a leader....and go figure....that leader never likes to give up power....so it remains an authoritarian regime. So yes, even socialism/communism as written by Marx calls for an dictatorship in the initial stages. Did you happen to miss that part of his writings or theories?

"Yeah, and that's all well and good, but the argument hasn't been that communism, as it has been "practiced" by China during its history, has led to exploitation, oppression, and persecution. That's not what we've been talking about (or at least what I've been talking about).

Actually, that's been my entire argument since my very first post in this thread. And I'm sure you're aware of it considering I've stated that a dozen times in this thread. China still being communist was a secondary argument. (I've shown that they are but you disagree because we have two different views of what communism is).

I think another major reason we're disagreeing so much is because when you speak of communism, you are basing it around a "planned economy" concept, vs. a complete, totalitarian form of government (my view).

Please don't try to discount the way dictionaries define words. They have separate meanings for a reason. For example: If you look up the word "Bank" there are most likely close to a half dozen definitions for the word....anywhere from the "river bank" to "an establishment to store money"...according to your reasoning, in order for it to be a "true" bank, it would have to be both a "river bank" and an "establishment to store money"...plus another 3 or 4 other definitions of the word.

Do you see how illogical your reasoning is?

Are you really trying to prove that property is owned privately by showing real estate listings in China? Do you know who is selling those properties? I'm willing to wager that there's close to an 80% chance that whoever is selling any of those properties is either the Chinese government, a government official, someone who works for the Chinese government or someone who has strong ties to the Chinese government (aka, possible Chinese mob member who bribed someone in the Chinese government in order to accumulate property.) Yes, it is still that corrupt in China. The best part about your link is in the beginning of the page, where it states, "Foreigners need to have worked or studied in China for more than one year to buy a property in China." Sounds like a true market economy to me... Like you said, they are taking their sweet ass time in transitioning.

As for the 90% home ownership rate it's because homes are one of the only things Chinese citizens are allowed to invest in.

"As we’ve discussed before, since the government won’t let its people invest in much of anything outside China, and because stocks are notoriously volatile, the most popular store of value is apartments."

http://qz.com/141088/bubble-alert-in-some-chinese-cities-home-ownership-could-be-as-high-as-200/

Nice try on that one....you almost had me....

Since your posting links on the sale of property in China as a way to show that China is not a failed state....I'll post an article from this week showing how China has failed its people....like this farmer who had to saw off his own legs because China's healthcare would not cover his costs to have a procedure done on them....

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1353289/insurance-gaps-force-horrific-health-decisions-mainland

From my understanding, people in democratic countries typically don't have to saw their own legs off in order to survive.

Although it would be difficult for a person making minimum wage in the U.S. to travel either domestically or abroad, it would be far from impossible....like a person making $5 per day.

Let's say that Joe works at McDonald's and makes $8 per hour. That translates to $320 per week...if he doesn't work any overtime. If he's smart with his money, he could take a one week vacation traveling the U.S. every year and a one week vacation abroad....here's how:

Joe's monthly gross income would be $1385.00. SInce he would be in the lowest tax bracket, he would take home close to $1150.00 per month. (probably more but let's be conservative). Let's say Joe lives in suburban Philadelphia...Berks County.

Let's say that Joe (in most cases) has a room mate - Joe's portion of the rent is circa $350 per month...let's add another $100 for food and another $100 for bills. We can also add another $150 per month for general transportation expenses (either for public transportation or fuel for a car, etc). And let's go crazy and add an additional $100 for miscellaneous expenses. That adds up to $800 per month in expenses. Which leaves Joe with $350 leftover for the month. If Joe puts half in the bank for lifetime savings, he still has $175 leftover for his goal of taking vacations and traveling. He saves $175 for a year, which gives him $2100. Then he saves his earned income tax return (2012 average earned income credit tax return was $2200) which gives him a grand total of $4300.00

So Joe spends $300 on a round trip ticket to Orlando. He spends an additional $700 for accommodations. About $300 for Disney Tickets and another $300 for general expenses, food and souvenirs. Totaling $1600 for his domestic vacation. Leaving him with $2700 to travel abroad.

Joe spends $1200.00 on a round trip ticket to London. He decides to stay in youth hostiles for his week, only costing him about $350 for the week in London for accommodations. This leaves Joe an additional $1150 to spend on food and to take both Lenny and Dazey out clubbing for half the week.

Tell me, how does a Chinese person making $5 per day ever even dream of doing such things?

Again, from the beginning, I was stating that this is what absolute socialism leads to - exploitation of people. In "absolute" socialism, I mean in a non democratic form of socialism, where there is no other choice of government, no system of checks and balances, etc.

I'm sorry you didn't think the dozens of examples I posted doesn't prove "causation". Don't know what to tell ya there....I would think most sane and logically thinking people would.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Kasanova King

[downzy]

@ Downzy

It's painfully obvious that you have been basing your argument around the writings of Karl Marx and his "utopian" vision for socialism/communism. And I have already stated ad nauseum that I was basing my argument from real world scenarios. For some reason, we keep coming back to this same exact debate....over....and over....and over again. If this isn't talking in circles, I don't know what is. It's borderline insane, actually.

Now, you've taken it a step further and have come up with a whopper - doubting that China was ever "truly" communist, even under Mao. This shows that you have a very narrow and (borderline) ignorant view and understanding of communism. Maybe you only read the parts of Marxist theory that dealt with the "utopian" society aspect of socialism but the first part clearly states in the beginning there will be a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". And that sounds all honky dory....except historically, the proletariat has always elected a leader....and go figure....that leader never likes to give up power....so it remains an authoritarian regime. So yes, even socialism/communism as written by Marx calls for an dictatorship in the initial stages. Did you happen to miss that part of his writings or theories?

"Yeah, and that's all well and good, but the argument hasn't been that communism, as it has been "practiced" by China during its history, has led to exploitation, oppression, and persecution. That's not what we've been talking about (or at least what I've been talking about).

Actually, that's been my entire argument since my very first post in this thread. And I'm sure you're aware of it considering I've stated that a dozen times in this thread. China still being communist was a secondary argument. (I've shown that they are but you disagree because we have two different views of what communism is).

I think another major reason we're disagreeing so much is because when you speak of communism, you are basing it around a "planned economy" concept, vs. a complete, totalitarian form of government (my view).

Please don't try to discount the way dictionaries define words. They have separate meanings for a reason. For example: If you look up the word "Bank" there are most likely close to a half dozen definitions for the word....anywhere from the "river bank" to "an establishment to store money"...according to your reasoning, in order for it to be a "true" bank, it would have to be both a "river bank" and an "establishment to store money"...plus another 3 or 4 other definitions of the word.

Do you see how illogical your reasoning is?

I'm just going to stop you right there because I think we need to go over the basic concept of Boolean logic. If I were to look up the term t-shirt in the dictionary, it would most likely say that it is a garment made of cloth (natural or synthetic materials), that it is meant to be worn on a person's torso, and that its sleeves are cut short. That, in my mind, is the very basic definition of what a t-shirt is. Now, from that description or definition, can we extrapolate that any garment made of cloth is a t-shirt? If I can show that there are other forms of garments that also incorporate cloth, then it would be illogical to state that all garments made of cloth are t-shirts. It's simple Boolean logic. Unless of course, you just don't get that.

So again, let's examine China. It does have a totalitarian system of governance that runs on authoritarianism. But simply because it is totalitarian, does that make it communist? You argue that you've proven this to be the case. Really? Explain Saudia Arabia, Iran, or many of the other totalitarian governments around the world. There governments are not considered communist, so why do you continue to argue that simply because China has this characteristic that this makes it communist. It does not follow logic. Or do you not understand logic? Is it a foreign concept to you? I would agree that if there were not other governments that did rule through authoritarianism that one could then conclude that China being so makes it communist, but since it is not a trait specific to China, it is disingenuous to claim otherwise.

I won't address your other points until you at least address what I've presented here.

Edited November 12, 2013 by downzy