SOS Letter from China

[Ace Nova]

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.

I'm really starting to think you're insane. I actually tend to agree with most of what you say in this forum but you have gone off the deep end in this debate. I stated that there are multiple definitions for words in a dictionary for a reason....and you're spinning it once again....you should be a politician....you know how the saying goes...."a liberal can never be wrong....or admit to being wrong".....

I've never once stated that all totalitarian governments are communist. STOP SPINNING THE DEBATE. It's absolutely useless and an unnecessary waste of my time to go any further....no matter what I state, you will try to spin the meaning to attempt to save face in this debate. It's actually sad....and I would think it was beneath you....but apparently not....

Go spin another debate in another thread....I'm done here.

[downzy]

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.

I've never once stated that all totalitarian governments are communist. STOP SPINNING THE DEBATE. It's absolutely useless and an unnecessary waste of my time to go any further....no matter what I state, you will try to spin the meaning to attempt to save face in this debate. It's actually sad....and I would think it was beneath you....but apparently not....

I don't see how I'm talking in circles when all I've been trying to do is to get you to acknowledge this point: if all totalitarian governments are not communist, then why is China considered communist simply because it is totalitarian? The logic doesn't follow. Simply pointing to a dictionary and stating that because communist governments have been totalitarian, it doesn't render all totalitarian governments as communist. But this is a point you stubbornly won't move off of for no reason other than you've backed yourself into a corner that you refuse to come out from.

So if you can't prove that China is communist, my point remains: the instance of exploitation as provided by the OP cannot be directly attributed to communism. It can be attributed to authoritarianism, a nation's blatant disrespect for human rights, and the increasing presence of multinational corporations who scour the world looking for the cheapest places to make their products.

My argument has never been that communism, as it has been practiced, hasn't produced great exploitation and oppression. All forms of governance and economic organization have shown to produce exploitation, whether it be capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism. Even democracies have produced periods of great exploitation and enslavement. So I'm not trying to pick a fight with you over something so obvious. My issue was, from the beginning, that exploitation that takes place in China can't be attributed to communism since it is a country that is communist in name only. You took a quote from Rand which you thought was clever and attributed to a situation that didn't call for it. And that has been my point all along.

The other issue - China being a failed state - is perhaps a bit more of a relative proposition, but I still think you're reaching by advocating so strongly for the opinion that China is a failed state. I keep using America as a nation to compare China to not because I think China is a better country or Americans are worse off than Chinese citizens, but only to underscore that simply because a nation has problems it doesn't mean it is a failed state. Look at your example of a Chinese person having to cut off his legs because China wouldn't pay for his treatment. While that's terrible (and perhaps a bit drastic on his part), it's not as though many citizens in the U.S. don't also face healthcare realities. In Michael Moore's movie Sicko, he highlights an American who had an accident with a saw which cut off two of his fingers. The hospital told him it would cost $60,000 to attach both, a figure he couldn't afford. So he was forced to decide which finger to keep. Or how about the guy who robbed a bank for $1 simply so he could be locked up to get health care. Do we consider America a failed state because of these instances? I don't think. They're terrible, but it's perhaps a bit dramatic to conclude that America is a failed state because of them.

LOL, and where in America are you paying $350 a month for rent? I'd like to move there. Again, you're picking arbitrary numbers to make your case. The average cost of rent in New York City is $3000 a month. How is a guy making minimum wage going to go to Disney if he's only making $8 an hour and having to pay at least a $1000 a month. Most fast food workers subsist on food stamps or other forms of public assistance, which sort of invalidates your arbitrary budget that suggests such individuals have money to take themselves and families to Disney.

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.

Sure, I won't disagree with that. But my point was that China isn't a good example of "absolute socialism." If China isn't absolutely socialism (or communist), then the example provided by the OP can't be attributed to either economic philosophy.

Edited November 12, 2013 by downzy

[Ace Nova]

I don't see how I'm talking in circles when all I've been trying to do is to get you to acknowledge this point: if all totalitarian governments are not communist, then why is China considered communist simply because it is totalitarian? The logic doesn't follow. Simply pointing to a dictionary and stating that because communist governments have been totalitarian, it doesn't render all totalitarian governments as communist. But this is a point you stubbornly won't move off of for no reason other than you've backed yourself into a corner that you refuse to come out from.

So if you can't prove that China is communist, my point remains: the instance of exploitation as provided by the OP cannot be directly attributed to communism. It can be attributed to authoritarianism, a nation's blatant disrespect for human rights, and the increasing presence of multinational corporations who scour the world looking for the cheapest places to make their products.

My argument has never been that communism, as it has been practiced, hasn't produced great exploitation and oppression. All forms of governance and economic organization have shown to produce exploitation, whether it be capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism. Even democracies have produced periods of great exploitation and enslavement. So I'm not trying to pick a fight with you over something so obvious. My issue was, from the beginning, that exploitation that takes place in China can't be attributed to communism since it is a country that is communist in name only. You took a quote from Rand which you thought was clever and attributed to a situation that didn't call for it. And that has been my point all along.

The other issue - China being a failed state - is perhaps a bit more of a relative proposition, but I still think you're reaching by advocating so strongly for the opinion that China is a failed state. I keep using America as a nation to compare China to not because I think China is a better country or Americans are worse off than Chinese citizens, but only to underscore that simply because a nation has problems it doesn't mean it is a failed state. Look at your example of a Chinese person having to cut off his legs because China wouldn't pay for his treatment. While that's terrible (and perhaps a bit drastic on his part), it's not as though many citizens in the U.S. don't also face healthcare realities. In Michael Moore's movie Sicko, he highlights an American who had an accident with a saw which cut off two of his fingers. The hospital told him it would cost $60,000 to attach both, a figure he couldn't afford. So he was forced to decide which finger to keep. Or how about the guy who robbed a bank for $1 simply so he could be locked up to get health care. Do we consider America a failed state because of these instances? I don't think. They're terrible, but it's perhaps a bit dramatic to conclude that America is a failed state because of them.

LOL, and where in America are you paying $350 a month for rent? I'd like to move there. Again, you're picking arbitrary numbers to make your case. The average cost of rent in New York City is $3000 a month. How is a guy making minimum wage going to go to Disney if he's only making $8 an hour and having to pay at least a $1000 a month. Most fast food workers subsist on food stamps or other forms of public assistance, which sort of invalidates your arbitrary budget that suggests such individuals have money to take themselves and families to Disney.

Sure, I won't disagree with that. But my point was that China isn't a good example of "absolute socialism." If China isn't absolutely socialism (or communist), then the example provided by the OP can't be attributed to either economic philosophy.

Finally, we can reveal what we are really disagreeing over. It took us over 100 posts and 7+ pages to come to the conclusion that the only thing we're really disagreeing over is Rand's view of socialism/communism and how it pertains to modern day China, correct? I firmly believe that it does but you obviously don't. I can live with that.

I also agree that exploitation is not unique to communism or socialism - and I have stated that exact sentiment several times.

As for the definition of communism - please do not insult my intelligence - obviously not all authoritarian regimes are communist BUT almost ALL communist regimes are authoritarian. Would you say this is a fair conclusion? (Based on history and real world scenarios)?

In reference to the other healthcare situations you described - in the U.S. the man lost his fingers by accident ...and unfortunately they couldn't be reattached....in China, the man was forced to saw off his own legs intentionally....huge difference! If that man was in the U.S. - worst case scenario, he would have went to the ER and at the very least, a Doctor would have amputated his legs (if they couldn't save them). Hospitals in the U.S. abide by ethical standards in emergency (life or death) situations and will not let a patient die - with or without insurance. In China, these standards do not exist.

You must have missed the part where I stated that Joe had a roommate (or multiple roommates) so his portion of the rent could easily be $350 per month. You can easily get an apartment for $700-$1000 per month almost anywhere in the country, outside metropolitan areas. For instance, in my example, I stated that Joe lived in Berks County, Pa....and yes, you can get an apartment for $700 per month, get a roommate there and your rent would be $350 per month, split. How can you say my scenario is unrealistic?.... when in reality, my scenario is much more likely to be true for a typcal McDonald's employee vs. renting a $3000 apartment.

But let's just say Joe does work at a McDonald's in Manhattan. Most McDonald's employees don't rent $3000 apartments in Manhattan. Most likely, they live in northern Jersey, (or lesser expensive borough) with a couple roommates and take the train/subway/bus into town. ...not to mention the fact that McDonald's Restaurants in Manhattan pay more than $8 per hour....closer to $10+ per hour So it's all relative.

Edited November 13, 2013 by Kasanova King

[downzy]

I don't see how I'm talking in circles when all I've been trying to do is to get you to acknowledge this point: if all totalitarian governments are not communist, then why is China considered communist simply because it is totalitarian? The logic doesn't follow. Simply pointing to a dictionary and stating that because communist governments have been totalitarian, it doesn't render all totalitarian governments as communist. But this is a point you stubbornly won't move off of for no reason other than you've backed yourself into a corner that you refuse to come out from.

So if you can't prove that China is communist, my point remains: the instance of exploitation as provided by the OP cannot be directly attributed to communism. It can be attributed to authoritarianism, a nation's blatant disrespect for human rights, and the increasing presence of multinational corporations who scour the world looking for the cheapest places to make their products.

My argument has never been that communism, as it has been practiced, hasn't produced great exploitation and oppression. All forms of governance and economic organization have shown to produce exploitation, whether it be capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism. Even democracies have produced periods of great exploitation and enslavement. So I'm not trying to pick a fight with you over something so obvious. My issue was, from the beginning, that exploitation that takes place in China can't be attributed to communism since it is a country that is communist in name only. You took a quote from Rand which you thought was clever and attributed to a situation that didn't call for it. And that has been my point all along.

The other issue - China being a failed state - is perhaps a bit more of a relative proposition, but I still think you're reaching by advocating so strongly for the opinion that China is a failed state. I keep using America as a nation to compare China to not because I think China is a better country or Americans are worse off than Chinese citizens, but only to underscore that simply because a nation has problems it doesn't mean it is a failed state. Look at your example of a Chinese person having to cut off his legs because China wouldn't pay for his treatment. While that's terrible (and perhaps a bit drastic on his part), it's not as though many citizens in the U.S. don't also face healthcare realities. In Michael Moore's movie Sicko, he highlights an American who had an accident with a saw which cut off two of his fingers. The hospital told him it would cost $60,000 to attach both, a figure he couldn't afford. So he was forced to decide which finger to keep. Or how about the guy who robbed a bank for $1 simply so he could be locked up to get health care. Do we consider America a failed state because of these instances? I don't think. They're terrible, but it's perhaps a bit dramatic to conclude that America is a failed state because of them.

LOL, and where in America are you paying $350 a month for rent? I'd like to move there. Again, you're picking arbitrary numbers to make your case. The average cost of rent in New York City is $3000 a month. How is a guy making minimum wage going to go to Disney if he's only making $8 an hour and having to pay at least a $1000 a month. Most fast food workers subsist on food stamps or other forms of public assistance, which sort of invalidates your arbitrary budget that suggests such individuals have money to take themselves and families to Disney.

Sure, I won't disagree with that. But my point was that China isn't a good example of "absolute socialism." If China isn't absolutely socialism (or communist), then the example provided by the OP can't be attributed to either economic philosophy.

Finally, we can reveal what we are really disagreeing over. It took us over 100 posts and 7+ pages to come to the conclusion that the only thing we're really disagreeing over is Rand's view of socialism/communism and how it pertains to modern day China, correct? I firmly believe that it does but you obviously don't. I can live with that.

I also agree that exploitation is not unique to communism or socialism - and I have stated that exact sentiment several times.

As for the definition of communism - please do not insult my intelligence - obviously not all authoritarian regimes are communist BUT almost ALL communist regimes are authoritarian. Would you say this is a fair conclusion? (Based on history and real world scenarios)?

In reference to the other healthcare situations you described - in the U.S. the man lost his fingers by accident ...and unfortunately they couldn't be reattached....in China, the man was forced to saw off his own legs intentionally....huge difference! If that man was in the U.S. - worst case scenario, he would have went to the ER and at the very least, a Doctor would have amputated his legs (if they couldn't save them). Hospitals in the U.S. abide by ethical standards in emergency (life or death) situations and will not let a patient die - with or without insurance. In China, these standards do not exist.

You must have missed the part where I stated that Joe had a roommate (or multiple roommates) so his portion of the rent could easily be $350 per month. You can easily get an apartment for $700-$1000 per month almost anywhere in the country, outside metropolitan areas. For instance, in my example, I stated that Joe lived in Berks County, Pa....and yes, you can get an apartment for $700 per month, get a roommate there and your rent would be $350 per month, split. How can you say my scenario is unrealistic?.... when in reality, my scenario is much more likely to be true for a typcal McDonald's employee vs. renting a $3000 apartment.

But let's just say Joe does work at a McDonald's in Manhattan. Most McDonald's employees don't rent $3000 apartments in Manhattan. Most likely, they live in northern Jersey, (or lesser expensive borough) with a couple roommates and take the train/subway/bus into town. ...not to mention the fact that McDonald's Restaurants in Manhattan pay more than $8 per hour....closer to $10+ per hour So it's all relative.

But how does Rand's quote apply to the example of exploitation the OP provided since China is communist in name only? You keep saying this is what you believe, but you haven't provided valid reasons for such an opinion. I'm not here to argue that communism, as it has been practiced, hasn't resulted in exploitation and misery, but there are too many cooks in the kitchen - so to speak - to assign culpability of the OP's example of exploitation on communism in China. If China doesn't actually practice the major tenets of communism, and there is without a doubt major corporations and capitalist forces at work in present day China, what reason would you have to condemn communism in this case?

Yes, all supposedly communist regimes have produced examples of exploitation. But so too have regimes and economic models that have no association to communism. Capitalist states have produced exploitation, democracies have allowed exploitation. Exploitation is not solely the product of how communism as it has been practiced. And as I have repeatedly shown, China shares far more capitalistic tendencies than communist ones (whether in practice or in theory): private property, market economy, growing wealth inequality, privatized agricultural production, the proliferation of private businesses, etc.

KK, I do like you and I do enjoy your posts, but for the same reason why I give Shade a hard time over using false information is why I'm going to give you a hard time playing fast and lose with the facts. You claim that "in the U.S. the man lost his fingers by accident ...and unfortunately they couldn't be reattached." Unequivocally that is not true. Perhaps it's been awhile since you've seen the film, so I'll just assume you weren't purposely making stuff up. So to remind you, the man did have his fingers cut off in an accident, but the hospital was able to reattach them. It's just that to reattach the middle one it would have cost $60,000, while reattaching his ring finger would set him back $12,000. Because he couldn't afford both, he paid the $12k to have his ring finger reattached and the hospital threw out the top of his middle finger. Here:

As for your example of the man chopping of his own right leg (not both his legs as you have stated, though not that that makes this story a whole lot better), he was not "forced" to chop if off himself. He did so because he couldn't afford the medical bills. Granted, it's a terrible incident, far worse than losing a few digits, but it's based on the same premise as the American who lost his fingers: both were denied care because they could not afford it. I also find it interesting you don't seem much bothered by the fact that an American had to rob a bank $1 just so he could obtain healthcare while in prison.

Your whole "Joe from Berks County" is just ridiculous because it's made up of completely arbitrary numbers. You're just making up figures that don't reflect what most fast food workers experience (example: $8 an hour, or your assumption that it's closer to $10 an hour in NYC. Minimum wage is $7.25 in New York State). For a real life example, watch this film: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/nation/july-dec13/minimumwage_11-04.html.

I'm glad you decided to come back to this thread because there are a few things in your previous post that I wanted to address but haven't had the chance. The last thing I'd want to be accused of is purposely avoiding evidence/arguments because I can't challenge them.

First, you stated:

"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."

I suppose you don't get out much, but the Chinese having been going on a buying spree all over the world. When I use to show condos ten years ago in downtown Toronto I would guess that 25 to 40 percent of interested buyers were from China. Chinese investors have been gobbling up property all over the U.S., including Florida and California. Hell, the Chinese are even willing to buy up Detroit in the hopes of the city seeing a turn around. So apparently private ownership extends beyond China's borders.

Second, you stated: ""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..."

But this policy is often found in a lot of countries, not just China. Look at Australia. You're not allowed to buy property in Australia unless you've been a resident for 12 months, which is actually a rule that was just implemented four years ago that eased property ownership rights. Incidentally, a lion's share of those taking advantage of Australia's easing of the rules to allow property ownership for foreigners (again, must live in Australia for twelve months, just like China) have been people from China.

The same kind of restrictions are also found countries like Switzerland, Austria, Greece and Croatia. Restrictions on foreign ownership have little to do the type of an economy a country has and more to do with reducing foreign ownership and national control over land. It's a political matter, not an economic one, since the restrictions of foreign ownership do not apply to domestics. Moreover, property restrictions in China are most generally attributed to the Chinese governments attempts to reduce potential housing bubbles.

Third, and finally, you stated:

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?

First, I would like to ask where and when you had any formal education of political science and political ideology. You accuse me of having a narrow and borderline ignorant view and understanding of communism, but I find that funny since I spent two four studying political theory that included the works of Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, Paine, Kant, Mill, Kierkegaard, Thoreau, and Marx (among others). What qualifications do you have that warrants allows you to judge whether someone's understanding over political theory is sound? Now I admit that it has been awhile since that studies. And maybe the University of Toronto (the 19th ranked university in the world) doesn't teach political theory as well as the school you studied political science. I'm sorry, I asked you before but you never responded. Should I infer that you have never taken a course on political theory? That your study of Marx is informal at best and based on Ayn Rand websites at its worst? There's nothing wrong with that per se, but I'm not sure you're in any qualified position to evaluate the theoretical knowledge of those who actually have degrees on the topic if you don't have one yourself.

As for the point you have raised, it should be noted that Marx never called for a "dictatorship" in the way you're interpreting it. He argued that the revolution would be violent and require force, but he always maintained that political control remains in the hands of the proletariat, as in the many over the few. The term dictatorship usually refers to the classical Roman dictatura - republican and constitutional with absolute power, while Marx's dictatorship of proletariat is revolutionary government with majority (proletariat) support which wields absolute power to replace the incumbent capitalist economic system and its socio-political supports, i.e. the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie." It's simply replacing the rule by many over the rule of a few. This is what he meant by "dictatorship" - he did not mean what has been practiced in the U.S.S.R., North Korea, Cuba, and China. So your statement that "even socialism/communism as written by Marx calls for an [sic] dictatorship in the initial states." He just wants the will of the majority to replace the will of the minority. Others have other terms for this concept, most notably James Madison writing about the tyranny of the majority. Madison views this prospect as terrible where Marx embraces it.

Edited November 13, 2013 by downzy

[Ace Nova]

I think the major point of confusion is coming from my initial post. I posted that this is what absolute socialism leads to. I also posted Rand’s quote immediately after my comment…so I can see why you may be confused. You are automatically linking Rand’s quote to modern day China. Which for me is fine…but I also understand how you can see problems with it. I’m absolutely fine with you disagreeing with me….but I’m not going to change or alter my initial post or my sentiments on the matter. I have clearly stated where I stand on the issue over the last 7+ pages. The truth of the matter is that I have shown how Rand’s comment is associated with modern day China but you disagree with my conclusion. So rather than simply stating that you disagree with my conclusion, you want to be a stubborn mule and insist that I never stated how.

There you go again…talking in circles on how exploitation is not unique to communism. You’ve stated that a dozen times… and a dozen times….I’VE AGREED WITH YOU. You are currently beginning to fit Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity to a T.

Like I already said, Downzy…I actually agree with most of what you say around here. I think you’re articulate, highly intelligent, well-educated and for the most part, you know your stuff… and typically, you add a lot of wisdom and enlightenment to the forum. (Which around here, is very much needed at times ) But for the Love of God…please don’t ever compare my arguments with Shades’. Nothing against Shades, I think he speaks from the heart….but his heart was sacrificed to the extreme right many years ago. (Parts of it… anyway…some of his stances have become surprisingly moderate as of late).

This brings up another issue. I am not affiliated with any political party. I truly feel, from the core of my beliefs, that the truth and solution always lies somewhere in the middle. That’s why I base my thoughts, opinions, etc. on historical evidence, pragmatism, science and logic….on the other end, I also believe in God. I never vote for a political party…I vote for the person. I always want to hear both sides of the debate before forming my own opinion. I knew, many years ago, when some of my friends wanted me to become Republican and others (even family members) wanted me to become Democrat…that being non-partisan and truly, Centrist/Moderate, would be the toughest road to take. But I chose that road because it was the only logical and sensible thing for me to do. I knew I would never have an abundance of friends on either side…and in many cases, I wouldn’t make anyone happy….but I knew for the most part, my conclusions, thoughts, opinions, etc…would be the most accurate and closest to the truth. They would never be tainted by being associated with a certain political party.

I come on this forum every day and never can make either side happy. I have conservatives (such as Shades) calling me a liberal on one end…and I have you, comparing me to Shades, on the other….can you, at the very least…see my pain? …or how comical it is?

As for the whole ‘Sicko’ thing…I think there’s a difference between someone having to cut their own leg off vs. someone who can’t get his fingers re-attached…and you don’t. Both scenarios are absolutely sick, despicable and disgusting…to say the least…let’s leave it at that.

On a side note…I was at one point a fan of Michael Moore’s. But after seeing how even the Occupy Movement seemingly turned against him…I’m having second thoughts. In your opinion, is there any validity to (some members of) the Occupy movement calling Michael Moore an absolute hypocrite?

Please don’t argue financial, budget and mathematical scenarios with me. (Director of Finance is only part of my resume). I've already proven mathematically (as unlikely as it may be) that at the very least, it is possible for a McDonald’s employee to take a vacation in…or outside the country, on a yearly basis. Where, mathematically, it is impossible for someone who earns less than $5 per day to do so.

"I suppose you don't get out much, but the Chinese having been going on a buying spree all over the world. When I use to show condos ten years ago in downtown Toronto I would guess that 25 to 40 percent of interested buyers were from China. Chinese investors have been gobbling up property all over the U.S., including Florida and California. Hell, the Chinese are even willing to buy up Detroit in the hopes of the city seeing a turn around. So apparently private ownership extends beyond China's borders."

"Second, you stated: ""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..."

The first quote I posted was from a professional writer (I posted the link)…the second was from the very web page YOU posted a link to. If you want to argue their validity, argue it with them. And if you don’t agree with the validity of the web pages that YOU post, why would you post them???

When you state that you spent two four…do you mean a political science class in college? Did you major in political science? I didn’t…but I do have a BA in Psychology…and yes, I studied just about everyone you mentioned. I’m guessing you majored in English and took a political science class somewhere along the way?

I would think someone as intelligent as yourself would realize that with the coming of the information age, that anyone…and I mean just about anyone…can get a clear understanding of just about any topic if they so choose to research it extensively. It’s really not that difficult.

But I’ll play along with you here. I’ve based my argument from an intermediate understanding of political structure, in which I learned through high school and college…but I only formed some of my thoughts and opinions after living through parts of the cold war…understanding the effects of fascism first hand…both pros and cons (my grandfather was a devout Mussolini supporter) living through the Reagan years of capitalist liberation…through the Clinton years of moderate bliss…through the W Bush years of extreme…well…I’m not sure what I learned through the W Bush years… ….and after extensive personal research…heck, I’ve probably destroyed several personal relationships with women because they think I’m, “An information geek”….

Again, I must apologize for not being clear when I stated the meaning of the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”. Or maybe you must have missed the part where I stated that in HISTORY…the so called “Proletariat” ALWAYS elected a leader…and unfortunately, that leader NEVER wanted to give up power. THAT’S THE FATAL FLAW OF MARXIST THEORY. It does not have a system of checks and balances in the event that the so called “leader” of the Proletariat refuses to give up power…and that’s why both Russia and China became the despicable and fraudulent form of communism that is an abomination to the actual writings and teachings of Karl Marx. (And his predecessors).

Unfortunately, because of this fatal flaw…the world will always refer to socialism and communism as the way it was practiced in both China and Russia…not in the way Marx or any of his forerunners intended it to be. And that is the form of communism and socialism I have been referring to since the beginning...as it has been practiced and known throughout the history world.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Kasanova King

[downzy]

The truth of the matter is that I have shown how Rand’s comment is associated with modern day China but you disagree with my conclusion. So rather than simply stating that you disagree with my conclusion, you want to be a stubborn mule and insist that I never stated how.

Look, you would be absolutely correct in accusing me of being a broken record, because I believe I've repeated myself numerous times. Talking in circles, no - since nearly every post I've made has been in response to your arguments. I asked you (a couple of times, actually) to clearly state your argument(s) and the reasons for why you believe them to be true. Talking in circles would be me bringing up new topics or sidetracking discussions while avoiding the core issue. I have repeatedly returned my posts to the purpose of this thread: exploitation in China and why such an instance as provided by the OP is not the fault of communism. Rand's comment would apply if China actually practiced communism (either in theory or as it has historically been practiced/perverted). If you have truly shown how Rand's quote applied to this case of exploitation, you would have to demonstrate that China is indeed still communist (if it ever truly was). This is why I'm being such a dick by refusing to agree to disagree.

As for the whole ‘Sicko’ thing…I think there’s a difference between someone having to cut their own leg off vs. someone who can’t get his fingers re-attached…and you don’t. Both scenarios are absolutely sick, despicable and disgusting…to say the least…let’s leave it at that.

I think having to cut off your own leg because you can't afford the procedure is definitely worse than not being able to afford keeping your finger. While one example is worse than the other (hence there's a severity difference), both instances work off of the same principle: both were denied healthcare because they couldn't afford the operation. Both lost a part of them due to financial restrictions. But suggest that both China and the U.S. have a long way to go with respect to the health and safety of their citizens. And while losing a limb is terrible, think about how many Americans have died over the past fifty years as a result of not having health insurance or having their coverage cut off by their providers because they've hit their policy's cap. Again, the point I'm making is that if you're going to consider China as a failed state because of the terrible treatment their poorest citizens receive, how do you square that with what has transpired in the U.S.? By that measure you'd have to conclude that the U.S. is a failed state as well, but I think few people would actually come to that conclusion.

On a side note…I was at one point a fan of Michael Moore’s. But after seeing how even the Occupy Movement seemingly turned against him…I’m having second thoughts. In your opinion, is there any validity to (some members of) the Occupy movement calling Michael Moore an absolute hypocrite?

I wasn't aware of the OWS movement ostracizing Moore. What were they calling him a hypocrite for? Personally, I don't have a high opinion of the OWS movement. In one sense they helped elevate the issue of income inequality in the national discourse, but it was so completely mismanaged that I think they might have hurt their cause more than they helped. Not sure if you watch The Newsroom, but they perfectly summed up the problems I have with the OWS movement.

Please don’t argue financial, budget and mathematical scenarios with me. (Director of Finance is only part of my resume). I've already proven mathematically (as unlikely as it may be) that at the very least, it is possible for a McDonald’s employee to take a vacation in…or outside the country, on a yearly basis. Where, mathematically, it is impossible for someone who earns less than $5 per day to do so.

But you've proven it in the abstract, as if conditions are perfect and are experienced by most fast food workers. Do i think it's possible that somewhere, someone has followed your budget. Sure. But I don't think it's close to being prevalent among fast food workers. Proving that at least twenty percent (an arbitrary number on my part) can technically take a trip to Disney if their budget projection maps exactly reality does not invalidate the reality most fast food workers face. The fact that over fifty percent of fast food workers rely on a government subsidy to survive (food stamps, subsidized housing, medicaid health coverage in some cases) demonstrates how unlikely your abstract budget really is. Much like your criticism of communism in practice, American fast food workers in practice do not live in a country where yearly trips to Disney are a reality.

"I suppose you don't get out much, but the Chinese having been going on a buying spree all over the world. When I use to show condos ten years ago in downtown Toronto I would guess that 25 to 40 percent of interested buyers were from China. Chinese investors have been gobbling up property all over the U.S., including Florida and California. Hell, the Chinese are even willing to buy up Detroit in the hopes of the city seeing a turn around. So apparently private ownership extends beyond China's borders."

"Second, you stated: ""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..."

The first quote I posted was from a professional writer (I posted the link)…the second was from the very web page YOU posted a link to. If you want to argue their validity, argue it with them. And if you don’t agree with the validity of the web pages that YOU post, why would you post them???

I'm not sure if you were following my logic here. You argued that Chinese nationals were not permitted to buy property outside of China. I posted articles that proved that this was not the case.

You then posted that foreigners who wish to buy property in China must have worked or studied in China for more than a year, suggesting that this undermines the notion that China doesn't have a market economy. My response was that this condition imposed of foreign ownership is found in many other countries (Australia, Austria, Switzerland, Greece, etc.). Sure, it makes the market economy of each country a little less open, but it doesn't negate the fact that they're still market economies. Again, the definition of market economy is an economy in which decisions regarding investment, production and distribution are based on supply and demand^, and prices of goods and services are determined in a free price system. Putting restrictions on foreign ownership of property does not negate a market economy. I wasn't arguing that China doesn't impose foreign restrictions on land ownership.

When you state that you spent two four…do you mean a political science class in college? Did you major in political science? I didn’t…but I do have a BA in Psychology…and yes, I studied just about everyone you mentioned. I’m guessing you majored in English and took a political science class somewhere along the way?

I would think someone as intelligent as yourself would realize that with the coming of the information age, that anyone…and I mean just about anyone…can get a clear understanding of just about any topic if they so choose to research it extensively. It’s really not that difficult.

Full disclosure: I majored in political science and American studies (with a particular focus on the American political process). I have my masters in Political Science, which focused on the effects of family on party affiliation, partisanship, and voting patterns. I would never, at any point, argue that my position is correct simply because of my academic credentials. I do not believe that formal education bestows instant validation on any point that I make. There are many avenues in which one can obtain a full and robust understanding of a topic without having to attend a formal university.

My objection, however, was your assertion that my understanding of communist ideology was borderline ignorant considering political theory was something I spent four long years studying (I'll admit, it wasn't my favourite aspect of my studies and I favored classical political theory over more contemporary theory like Marxism). That doesn't mean I can't be wrong in some aspects of communist ideology, as I'll be the first to admit that I'm no authority on the matter, but I have a hard time believing that someone who spent far less time studying the subject than myself is in any position to suggest that my understanding is ignorant.

Again, I must apologize for not being clear when I stated the meaning of the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”. Or maybe you must have missed the part where I stated that in HISTORY…the so called “Proletariat” ALWAYS elected a leader…and unfortunately, that leader NEVER wanted to give up power. THAT’S THE FATAL FLAW OF MARXIST THEORY. It does not have a system of checks and balances in the event that the so called “leader” of the Proletariat refuses to give up power…and that’s why both Russia and China became the despicable and fraudulent form of communism that is an abomination to the actual writings and teachings of Karl Marx. (And his predecessors).

Except that in the post where you first raised the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" you were specifically speaking to the theory of Marxism:

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?

I would completely agree with you that Marx underestimates the dangers of a class-based revolution. But my point wasn't that communism isn't susceptible to being co-opted, but that this was never a component of Marxist theory. It's why I took on the quote by Rand you posted at the beginning of the thread. Communism/Marxism doesn't ascribe authoritarian rule by the few over the many. It's advises just the opposite, a "dictatorship of the proletariat," that would have the majority (the workers) holding the reigns of power. I don't disagree with your assessment over how this has played out, but I object to your assertion that oligarchic or dictatorial rule is implicit within Marxist ideology.

Look, I've enjoyed our conversation and our back and forth. But until you can prove that China is indeed communist, you can't argue that Rand's quote applies to this case of exploitation. If you want to continue the discussion over why exactly you think China is communist, I'll be here.

Edited November 14, 2013 by downzy

[Snake-Pit]

The government is a monopoly.

[Ace Nova]

It's funny actually 'cause over here people consider the US a country that's extremely right of center. How do you view the US yourself? And Canada.. left or right?

Actually I'm what I said about travelling 'cause who am I to say, I haven't seen that much of the World myself either so what do I know.. It's funny though how people view other countries' political leanings..

I would say currently the U.S. leans towards the right of center (but not extremely) and vice versa for Canada...slightly to the left of center.

[Ace Nova]

@ Downzy

It basically comes down to "proving" that China is still communist in your opinion but for me it doesn't. I conceded 5 pages ago that I was ok with you just referring to China as an authoritarian regime that became that way because of communist rule...and that thinking would go hand in hand with my initial post. Although Rand's quote may not seem to make sense talking about modern day China....it still makes sense when you attach it to my initial post...when I basically said that this is what "absolute socialism" leads to....but whatever....

As far the Occupy movement attacking Michael Moore....from my understanding (this is from memory, so it may not be 100% accurate) it was some of the extreme, heavily socialist/anarchist groups that were basically calling him a hypocrite...something along the lines that although he makes films about health insurance, etc....he still buys the most expensive "Cadillac" policies and instead of donating some of his money to help the Occupy cause, (or some of the people in his films) he basically profits off of it just like the other 1%ers.....something like that....there was footage taken showing a bunch of them basically harassing and booing him....

[downzy]

@ Downzy

It basically comes down to "proving" that China is still communist in your opinion but for me it doesn't. I conceded 5 pages ago that I was ok with you just referring to China as an authoritarian regime that became that way because of communist rule...and that thinking would go hand in hand with my initial post. Although Rand's quote may not seem to make sense talking about modern day China....it still makes sense when you attach it to my initial post...when I basically said that this is what "absolute socialism" leads to....but whatever....

As far the Occupy movement attacking Michael Moore....from my understanding (this is from memory, so it may not be 100% accurate) it was some of the extreme, heavily socialist/anarchist groups that were basically calling him a hypocrite...something along the lines that although he makes films about health insurance, etc....he still buys the most expensive "Cadillac" policies and instead of donating some of his money to help the Occupy cause, (or some of the people in his films) he basically profits off of it just like the other 1%ers.....something like that....there was footage taken showing a bunch of them basically harassing and booing him....

By your logic then all social ills currently found in Russia could be blamed on communism. Or maybe we should blame royal aristocracy for the plight of indigenous people in Canada despite not being ruled directly by the English Crown for quite some time. Communist rule has led to authoritarian rule, but authoritarian rule has derived from other forms of governance (democracy, for example). My problem with assigning culpability to modern day exploitation is that there is far too much of it found in countries that are considered capitalistic. The fact that China has become the world's production capital by opening up its economy to capitalist forces, in my opinion, is far more responsible for the terrible work conditions that are found in China - just like they're found in countries like India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia. Unchecked capitalism mixed with countries that sacrifice their citizens' human rights at the alter of economic growth are, I argue, far more responsible for the commonplace exploitation found around the world. Sure, communism is highly flawed in that it ignores humanity's worst tendencies, and its history is one of unimaginable sadness and misery, but since China has largely shed its communist ways decades ago it's tough to blame it for the most current depictions of human suffering. Simply blaming communism doesn't get to the root of the problem today: that unchecked capitalistic forces will exploit human resources where allowed.

I really didn't follow the OWS movement because I saw most of them as hypocrites themselves. While I think many of their objections and concerns about where we're heading as a society are valid, they were far too unorganized and splintered to ever do much politically. As much as I detest the politics of the Tea Party, you have to give them credit for understanding the political process and how to bend it to your will. If I was Michael Moore I wouldn't have donated to their movement either. He continually makes wealth inequality the focal point of many of his comments regarding the U.S. economy. It was the foundation for his movies Roger & Me, The Big One, and Capitalism: A Love Story. And he never wavers in his demand for higher taxes, a national/public healthcare system, and greater infrastructure investment. Just the fact that what he does pays him well doesn't, in my opinion, make him a hypocrite. I don't always agree with everything he says and I think he reaches with some of his points, but for the most part I would consider him fairly consistent.

Edited November 15, 2013 by downzy

[Ace Nova]

By your logic then all social ills currently found in Russia could be blamed on communism. Or maybe we should blame royal aristocracy for the plight of indigenous people in Canada despite not being ruled directly by the English Crown for quite some time. Communist rule has led to authoritarian rule, but authoritarian rule has derived from other forms of governance (democracy, for example). My problem with assigning culpability to modern day exploitation is that there is far too much of it found in countries that are considered capitalistic. The fact that China has become the world's production capital by opening up its economy to capitalist forces, in my opinion, is far more responsible for the terrible work conditions that are found in China - just like they're found in countries like India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia. Unchecked capitalism mixed with countries that sacrifice their citizens' human rights at the alter of economic growth are, I argue, far more responsible for the commonplace exploitation found around the world. Sure, communism is highly flawed in that it ignores humanity's worst tendencies, and its history is one of unimaginable sadness and misery, but since China has largely shed its communist ways decades ago it's tough to blame it for the most current depictions of human suffering. Simply blaming communism doesn't get to the root of the problem today: that unchecked capitalistic forces will exploit human resources where allowed.

In rare cases, democracy has lead to authoritarian forms of government but communism has always lead to authoritarian forms of government. Communism (historically) has killed more people and has lead to much worse conditions than democracy. Peacetime deaths from Communist regimes are estimated as high as 100 million people. Show me a peacetime democracy that has (even) 10% of that total.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Kasanova King

[downzy]

By your logic then all social ills currently found in Russia could be blamed on communism. Or maybe we should blame royal aristocracy for the plight of indigenous people in Canada despite not being ruled directly by the English Crown for quite some time. Communist rule has led to authoritarian rule, but authoritarian rule has derived from other forms of governance (democracy, for example). My problem with assigning culpability to modern day exploitation is that there is far too much of it found in countries that are considered capitalistic. The fact that China has become the world's production capital by opening up its economy to capitalist forces, in my opinion, is far more responsible for the terrible work conditions that are found in China - just like they're found in countries like India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia. Unchecked capitalism mixed with countries that sacrifice their citizens' human rights at the alter of economic growth are, I argue, far more responsible for the commonplace exploitation found around the world. Sure, communism is highly flawed in that it ignores humanity's worst tendencies, and its history is one of unimaginable sadness and misery, but since China has largely shed its communist ways decades ago it's tough to blame it for the most current depictions of human suffering. Simply blaming communism doesn't get to the root of the problem today: that unchecked capitalistic forces will exploit human resources where allowed.

In rare cases, democracy has lead to authoritarian forms of government but communism has always lead to authoritarian forms of government. Communism (historically) has killed more people and has lead to much worse conditions than democracy. Peacetime deaths from Communist regimes are estimated as high as 100 million people. Show me a peacetime democracy that has (even) 10% of that total.

And how does any of that apply to what's going on in China today?

China was once "communist," but it no longer operates as such. If the country is communist in name only, then logic dictates there are other forces at play and responsible for the exploitation outline by the OP.

Edited November 16, 2013 by downzy

[Ace Nova]

And how does any of that apply to what's going on in China today?

China was once "communist," but it no longer operates as such. If the country is communist in name only, then logic dictates there are other forces at play and responsible for the exploitation outline by the OP.

Most of it can be attributed to the authoritarian government (still communist, imo) that was caused by communism. China may be following a twisted (socialist) version of a market economy but when 80% of the wealth still has strong ties to the government, then the majority of the blame falls on the shoulders of the Chinese government. The exploitations outlined in this thread are only a fraction of a percent of what is really happening over there. The world only sees what happens to slip through the Chinese government's rigid censorship and control of the Chinese media.

Edited November 16, 2013 by Kasanova King

[OmarBradley]

I avoided reading this thread for a while because I assumed it had gone down the same route as the "Nixon homework help" thread. Boy was I wrong, turns out there's an actual intellectual discussion going on. Now, there's no way I'll be able to read everything you guys have been going back and forth over, and I'm not even sure I have sumrised who is arguing what, but a generality about the Chinese political system:

The Chinese government considers its current form of governance to be socialist, with communism as the goal. Although there have been reforms over the past 30 years, which include some privatization and institutionalization of executive power transfer, China sees itself as a socialist/communist power with economic capabilities. Premier Wen said in 2007 something along the lines of "justice, freedom, and rights are not attributes limited to democratic governments." Arguing that the Chinese government is authoritarian is ludicrous to be honest. China purposely started to diverge from the Soviet communist model as early as the 1950's.

In terms of censorship and media control, I agree, its deplorable. But Chinese culture is pretty different from western culture. China's "human rights" are based on the notion that everyone is entitled to economic equality, the conventional definition of human rights is not what China subscribes to. A lot of this is rooted in China's history pre-Mao. Not just the 19th and 20th centuries, but some of their political customs can be traced back to the Han Dynasty.

Lastly, I don't know if this distinction has been made, but the Chinese "government" is made up of two entities: the party and the state (can also be called government, its confusing). The party basically calls the shots, and the government executes the party's will. Many high level party positions also are tied to state positions, so the President (state) is also the General-Secretary of the party. This model, is very communist in nature. So China certainly isn't capitalist, its not really fully communist (because that doesn't work, and they know it), and they're sort of socialist. Weird combo, seems to be working though; depending on your definition of working though.

[Ace Nova]

I avoided reading this thread for a while because I assumed it had gone down the same route as the "Nixon homework help" thread. Boy was I wrong, turns out there's an actual intellectual discussion going on. Now, there's no way I'll be able to read everything you guys have been going back and forth over, and I'm not even sure I have sumrised who is arguing what, but a generality about the Chinese political system:

The Chinese government considers its current form of governance to be socialist, with communism as the goal. Although there have been reforms over the past 30 years, which include some privatization and institutionalization of executive power transfer, China sees itself as a socialist/communist power with economic capabilities. Premier Wen said in 2007 something along the lines of "justice, freedom, and rights are not attributes limited to democratic governments." Arguing that the Chinese government is authoritarian is ludicrous to be honest. China purposely started to diverge from the Soviet communist model as early as the 1950's.

In terms of censorship and media control, I agree, its deplorable. But Chinese culture is pretty different from western culture. China's "human rights" are based on the notion that everyone is entitled to economic equality, the conventional definition of human rights is not what China subscribes to. A lot of this is rooted in China's history pre-Mao. Not just the 19th and 20th centuries, but some of their political customs can be traced back to the Han Dynasty.

Lastly, I don't know if this distinction has been made, but the Chinese "government" is made up of two entities: the party and the state (can also be called government, its confusing). The party basically calls the shots, and the government executes the party's will. Many high level party positions also are tied to state positions, so the President (state) is also the General-Secretary of the party. This model, is very communist in nature. So China certainly isn't capitalist, its not really fully communist (because that doesn't work, and they know it), and they're sort of socialist. Weird combo, seems to be working though; depending on your definition of working though.

Your post basically states that we were both right, in a sense.

I'm not sure what you consider as 'authoritarian' but both Downzy and I agreed that the Chinese government still fits the definition of an authoritarian government. Maybe not to the extent of Communist Russia, but it's still very authoritarian compared to the majority of the "free" world.

[OmarBradley]

I was being stupid, switched up totalitarian and authoritarian in my mind. China does fit into many authoritarian paradigms (but not all, executive power transfer), but no totalitarian paradigms (though neither of you were arguing this). My mistake, carry on.

[DieselDaisy]

You are both making valid arguments and neither of you are right or wrong for the simple reason that nobody has quite resolved upon what China is? Certainly we can say that China is a, hitherto communist state, which has jettisoned communist economics in favour of, rampant 'market socialism.' She now has the same gaudy buildings the west has, has injected massive amounts of international investment into developing nations, yet she is still under one party: the Communist Party. So what do we call her? I would be inclined to still say communist but with one or two massive caveats.

Thing is, these are real time, concurrent debates. They are some scholars for instance who believe that China's highly successful capitalistic economy will inherently lead to the emergence of more humane, representative forms of government. These scholars point to how Europe's mercantile spirit of the middle ages (and later) helped eradicate Europe's authoritarian regimes. The 'internationalism' of capitalism is very important here as it opens differing nationalities up to new ideas and new systems of government. These scholars then see capitalism as a causative factor for, representation - even democracy - and see authoritarianism as unsustainable, alongside, capitalism. So, if those scholars are correct (and I hope they are), about representation happening in China, we will have to substantially alter all of our opinions and re-write a lot of books on the subject of China.

Then there are some scholars who argue precisely the opposite, that China’s economic success justifies maintaining the current status quo of aggressive capitalism under the auspices of a communist party! By the way, the communist success of 1948-9 is inherently bound up with the persona of Chairman Mao and therefore, authoritarianism. Communism certainly did not precede authoritarianism - quite the reverse.

[downzy]

And how does any of that apply to what's going on in China today?

China was once "communist," but it no longer operates as such. If the country is communist in name only, then logic dictates there are other forces at play and responsible for the exploitation outline by the OP.

Most of it can be attributed to the authoritarian government (still communist, imo) that was caused by communism. China may be following a twisted (socialist) version of a market economy but when 80% of the wealth still has strong ties to the government, then the majority of the blame falls on the shoulders of the Chinese government. The exploitations outlined in this thread are only a fraction of a percent of what is really happening over there. The world only sees what happens to slip through the Chinese government's rigid censorship and control of the Chinese media.

Authoritarianism was always present along with some communist tenets - it was never communism and then authoritarianism. There is no causation mechanism you continually allude to since both were present since Mao's rise.

I do agree that China's government deserves a share of responsibility for what transpires within its own borders. And if you're argument was limited to that proposition we wouldn't be 9 pages deep in this thread. But since China's government mirrors very little of how a communist government should operate (which is already a perversion of communism since the ideology calls for the elimination of the state), it is again absurd to blame communism for the ills that plague many Chinese workers. Many other neighboring governments also too own responsibility for the exploitation that takes place within their borders. Very little responsibility should be assigned to an ideology that shows little presence in the region (with the exception of North Korea).

You are both making valid arguments and neither of you are right or wrong for the simple reason that nobody has quite resolved upon what China is? Certainly we can say that China is a, hitherto communist state, which has jettisoned communist economics in favour of, rampant 'market socialism.' She now has the same gaudy buildings the west has, has injected massive amounts of international investment into developing nations, yet she is still under one party: the Communist Party. So what do we call her? I would be inclined to still say communist but with one or two massive caveats.

Then there are some scholars who argue precisely the opposite, that China’s economic success justifies maintaining the current status quo of aggressive capitalism under the auspices of a communist party! By the way, the communist success of 1948-9 is inherently bound up with the persona of Chairman Mao and therefore, authoritarianism. Communism certainly did not precede authoritarianism - quite the reverse.

But what exactly is your idea of communism then? I go back to my first post in this thread - if you're going to blame communism for the example of exploitation provided by the OP, I'm going to have a hard time believing you know what communism is. From your post all that I can gather is that China is communist solely because it is under one party rule, and that party just happens to be called the Communist Party. Personally, I find it a tad silly to perceive a nation's ideological foundation based on the name of its ruling party. Hosni Mubarak ruled Egypt for thirty years as the Chairman of the National Democratic Party. Did that make Egypt a democracy during his rule? I hardly think so.

So I'll ask you like I asked KK how exactly you define communism. If it's simply a matter of having one party rule then how would you describe the many other nations that have one-party rule but few regard as communist?

Edited November 18, 2013 by downzy

[DieselDaisy]

And how does any of that apply to what's going on in China today?

China was once "communist," but it no longer operates as such. If the country is communist in name only, then logic dictates there are other forces at play and responsible for the exploitation outline by the OP.

Most of it can be attributed to the authoritarian government (still communist, imo) that was caused by communism. China may be following a twisted (socialist) version of a market economy but when 80% of the wealth still has strong ties to the government, then the majority of the blame falls on the shoulders of the Chinese government. The exploitations outlined in this thread are only a fraction of a percent of what is really happening over there. The world only sees what happens to slip through the Chinese government's rigid censorship and control of the Chinese media.

Authoritarianism was always present along with some communist tenets - it was never communism and then authoritarianism. There is no causation mechanism you continually allude to since both were present since Mao's rise.

I do agree that China's government deserves a share of responsibility for what transpires within its own borders. And if you're argument was limited to that proposition we wouldn't be 9 pages deep in this thread. But since China's government mirrors very little of how a communist government should operate (which is already a perversion of communism since the ideology calls for the elimination of the state), it is again absurd to blame communism for the ills that plague many Chinese workers. Many other neighboring governments also too own responsibility for the exploitation that takes place within their borders. Very little responsibility should be assigned to an ideology that shows little presence in the region (with the exception of North Korea).

You are both making valid arguments and neither of you are right or wrong for the simple reason that nobody has quite resolved upon what China is? Certainly we can say that China is a, hitherto communist state, which has jettisoned communist economics in favour of, rampant 'market socialism.' She now has the same gaudy buildings the west has, has injected massive amounts of international investment into developing nations, yet she is still under one party: the Communist Party. So what do we call her? I would be inclined to still say communist but with one or two massive caveats.

Then there are some scholars who argue precisely the opposite, that China’s economic success justifies maintaining the current status quo of aggressive capitalism under the auspices of a communist party! By the way, the communist success of 1948-9 is inherently bound up with the persona of Chairman Mao and therefore, authoritarianism. Communism certainly did not precede authoritarianism - quite the reverse.

But what exactly is your idea of communism then? I go back to my first post in this thread - if you're going to blame communism for the example of exploitation provided by the OP, I'm going to have a hard time believing you know what communism is. From your post all that I can gather is that China is communist solely because it is under one party rule, and that party just happens to be called the Communist Party. Personally, I find it a tad silly to perceive a nation's ideological foundation based on the name of its ruling party. Hosni Mubarak ruled Egypt for thirty years as the Chairman of the National Democratic Party. Did that make Egypt a democracy during his rule? I hardly think so.

So I'll ask you like I asked KK how exactly you define communism. If it's simply a matter of having one party rule then how would you describe the many other nations that have one-party rule but few regard as communist?

You are having a debate about mere semantics. In the sense that China does not practice orthodox Marxist ideology, then no, China is not communist (but then, you could argue that she never was communist!). In the sense that she possesses a broadly Leninist political culture and still holds onto her post-Lenin 'leadership cult' as demonstrated in the figure of Mao, then yes, China is communist - at least in, western mainstream political parlance.

You have to remember that Marx was rather heavy on ideology, and rather vague on governance, and, that all the states which implemented communism did not possess the conditions deemed (by Marx) conducive for proletarian revolution. Leaders like Lenin and Mao also had to be, more pragmatic, and all introduced measures which could be said to be, anti-Marxist. Consequentially different factors were grafted onto Marxism, most predominantly, Leninism and authoritarianism (e.g. Stalinism and Maoism).

It is a sort of hybrid creature then, what mainstream political thought calls 'communism.'

[downzy]

And how does any of that apply to what's going on in China today?

China was once "communist," but it no longer operates as such. If the country is communist in name only, then logic dictates there are other forces at play and responsible for the exploitation outline by the OP.

Most of it can be attributed to the authoritarian government (still communist, imo) that was caused by communism. China may be following a twisted (socialist) version of a market economy but when 80% of the wealth still has strong ties to the government, then the majority of the blame falls on the shoulders of the Chinese government. The exploitations outlined in this thread are only a fraction of a percent of what is really happening over there. The world only sees what happens to slip through the Chinese government's rigid censorship and control of the Chinese media.

Authoritarianism was always present along with some communist tenets - it was never communism and then authoritarianism. There is no causation mechanism you continually allude to since both were present since Mao's rise.

I do agree that China's government deserves a share of responsibility for what transpires within its own borders. And if you're argument was limited to that proposition we wouldn't be 9 pages deep in this thread. But since China's government mirrors very little of how a communist government should operate (which is already a perversion of communism since the ideology calls for the elimination of the state), it is again absurd to blame communism for the ills that plague many Chinese workers. Many other neighboring governments also too own responsibility for the exploitation that takes place within their borders. Very little responsibility should be assigned to an ideology that shows little presence in the region (with the exception of North Korea).

You are both making valid arguments and neither of you are right or wrong for the simple reason that nobody has quite resolved upon what China is? Certainly we can say that China is a, hitherto communist state, which has jettisoned communist economics in favour of, rampant 'market socialism.' She now has the same gaudy buildings the west has, has injected massive amounts of international investment into developing nations, yet she is still under one party: the Communist Party. So what do we call her? I would be inclined to still say communist but with one or two massive caveats.

Then there are some scholars who argue precisely the opposite, that China’s economic success justifies maintaining the current status quo of aggressive capitalism under the auspices of a communist party! By the way, the communist success of 1948-9 is inherently bound up with the persona of Chairman Mao and therefore, authoritarianism. Communism certainly did not precede authoritarianism - quite the reverse.

But what exactly is your idea of communism then? I go back to my first post in this thread - if you're going to blame communism for the example of exploitation provided by the OP, I'm going to have a hard time believing you know what communism is. From your post all that I can gather is that China is communist solely because it is under one party rule, and that party just happens to be called the Communist Party. Personally, I find it a tad silly to perceive a nation's ideological foundation based on the name of its ruling party. Hosni Mubarak ruled Egypt for thirty years as the Chairman of the National Democratic Party. Did that make Egypt a democracy during his rule? I hardly think so.

So I'll ask you like I asked KK how exactly you define communism. If it's simply a matter of having one party rule then how would you describe the many other nations that have one-party rule but few regard as communist?

You are having a debate about mere semantics. In the sense that China does not practice orthodox Marxist ideology, then no, China is not communist (but then, you could argue that she never was communist!). In the sense that she possesses a broadly Leninist political culture and still holds onto her post-Lenin 'leadership cult' as demonstrated in the figure of Mao, then yes, China is communist - at least in, western mainstream political parlance.

You have to remember that Marx was rather heavy on ideology, and rather vague on governance, and, that all the states which implemented communism did not possess the conditions deemed (by Marx) conducive for proletarian revolution. Leaders like Lenin and Mao also had to be, more pragmatic, and all introduced measures which could be said to be, anti-Marxist. Consequentially different factors were grafted onto Marxism, most predominantly, Leninism and authoritarianism (e.g. Stalinism and Maoism).

It is a sort of hybrid creature then, what mainstream political thought calls 'communism.'

I suppose that's my issue with the broad use of the term communism, since many want to take issue with the philosophy/ideology of communism (or Marxism) but then go on to disparage how many of practiced or perverted the program. What I take exception to are those who would use the example of exploitation provided by the OP as evidence of culpability towards communist ideology when there are so many other forces at play. It's akin to someone blaming American gun violence on the drug trade when many other factors are at play.

But just to take an issue with your post, does simply having a "leadership-cult" dynamic render a country communist? There have been and still are many other countries where that dynamic is at play that few would ever consider the regime as communist (off the top of my hat, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Zimbabwe are states where such a dynamic plays a large part of their political/ruling structure). I would argue that it is a characteristic that is often found in "communist" regimes, but are not simply limited to communist countries.

What are the characteristics the China's current political regime possess that makes them different from other authoritative nations that would justify the description of communism? In my opinion, communism speaks more to an economic continuum more than a political one.

Edited November 18, 2013 by downzy

[Ace Nova]

You are having a debate about mere semantics. In the sense that China does not practice orthodox Marxist ideology, then no, China is not communist (but then, you could argue that she never was communist!). In the sense that she possesses a broadly Leninist political culture and still holds onto her post-Lenin 'leadership cult' as demonstrated in the figure of Mao, then yes, China is communist - at least in, western mainstream political parlance.

You have to remember that Marx was rather heavy on ideology, and rather vague on governance, and, that all the states which implemented communism did not possess the conditions deemed (by Marx) conducive for proletarian revolution. Leaders like Lenin and Mao also had to be, more pragmatic, and all introduced measures which could be said to be, anti-Marxist. Consequentially different factors were grafted onto Marxism, most predominantly, Leninism and authoritarianism (e.g. Stalinism and Maoism).

It is a sort of hybrid creature then, what mainstream political thought calls 'communism.'

Spot on. I've reiterated both those arguments ad nauseam throughout this thread...(just in different wording). I've been basing my position on the way it has been implemented throughout history and Downzy (as admitted above) is basing his off theory and ideology.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Kasanova King

[downzy]

You are having a debate about mere semantics. In the sense that China does not practice orthodox Marxist ideology, then no, China is not communist (but then, you could argue that she never was communist!). In the sense that she possesses a broadly Leninist political culture and still holds onto her post-Lenin 'leadership cult' as demonstrated in the figure of Mao, then yes, China is communist - at least in, western mainstream political parlance.

You have to remember that Marx was rather heavy on ideology, and rather vague on governance, and, that all the states which implemented communism did not possess the conditions deemed (by Marx) conducive for proletarian revolution. Leaders like Lenin and Mao also had to be, more pragmatic, and all introduced measures which could be said to be, anti-Marxist. Consequentially different factors were grafted onto Marxism, most predominantly, Leninism and authoritarianism (e.g. Stalinism and Maoism).

It is a sort of hybrid creature then, what mainstream political thought calls 'communism.'

Spot on. I've reiterated both those arguments ad nauseam throughout this thread...(just in different wording). I've been basing my position on the way it has been implemented throughout history and Downzy (as admitted above) is basing his off theory and ideology.

Except the quote by Rand you posted on the first page doesn't speak to the contemporary notion of communism but to the ideology itself.

And for your position to be correct, China would still have to be practicing either the ideological or the historical practice of communism. It does neither of those.

[Ace Nova]

Except the quote by Rand you posted on the first page doesn't speak to the contemporary notion of communism but to the ideology itself.

Actually, Rand was speaking of both - practice and ideology. She thought both were evil.

[DieselDaisy]

I suppose that's my issue with the broad use of the term communism, since many want to take issue with the philosophy/ideology of communism (or Marxism) but then go on to disparage how many of practiced or perverted the program. What I take exception to are those who would use the example of exploitation provided by the OP as evidence of culpability towards communist ideology when there are so many other forces at play. It's akin to someone blaming American gun violence on the drug trade when many other factors are at play.

But does not this point to a fundamental weakness with the original philosophy, Marxism, itself. The fact that what Marx said, concerning a 'two-stage' proletarian revolution in an industrial country, has never occurred, signifies that Marx was very much in error in his predictions. There is also the fact that whenever Marxism has been implemented, it has to graft on authoritarian and usually quite punitive measures such as Lenin's 'dictatorship of the proletariat' or Stalin and Mao's cult-of-personality. Does all this not signify an inherent weakness with Marxism itself?

But just to take an issue with your post, does simply having a "leadership-cult" dynamic render a country communist? There have been and still are many other countries where that dynamic is at play that few would ever consider the regime as communist (off the top of my hat, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Zimbabwe are states where such a dynamic plays a large part of their political/ruling structure). I would argue that it is a characteristic that is often found in "communist" regimes, but are not simply limited to communist countries.

I agree.

What are the characteristics the China's current political regime possess that makes them different from other authoritative nations that would justify the description of communism? In my opinion, communism speaks more to an economic continuum more than a political

Well it still espouses social engineering - witness its one child policy. It also still possesses a proletarian culture; for example, China is still theoretically atheistic (although obviously it is far more liberal on religion than during the days of the cultural revolution). Religion? ''opium of the masses'' etc. China also sees itself, historically, as belonging to the same movement that began with 'the Long March' and ended with Mao's victory in 1949. There has been no distinct historical breakage between 1949, and now - just a liberalisation from 1978 onwards. The Chinese themselves like to demarcate their history into quite distinct (formally dynastic) eras.

Edited November 18, 2013 by DieselDaisy

[downzy]

I suppose that's my issue with the broad use of the term communism, since many want to take issue with the philosophy/ideology of communism (or Marxism) but then go on to disparage how many of practiced or perverted the program. What I take exception to are those who would use the example of exploitation provided by the OP as evidence of culpability towards communist ideology when there are so many other forces at play. It's akin to someone blaming American gun violence on the drug trade when many other factors are at play.

But does not this point to a fundamental weakness with the original philosophy, Marxism, itself. The fact that what Marx said, concerning a 'two-stage' proletarian revolution in an industrial country, has never occurred, signifies that Marx was very much in error in his predictions. There is also the fact that whenever Marxism has been implemented, it has to graft on authoritarian and usually quite punitive measures such as Lenin's 'dictatorship of the proletariat' or Stalin and Mao's cult-of-personality. Does all this not signify an inherent weakness with Marxism itself?

But just to take an issue with your post, does simply having a "leadership-cult" dynamic render a country communist? There have been and still are many other countries where that dynamic is at play that few would ever consider the regime as communist (off the top of my hat, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Zimbabwe are states where such a dynamic plays a large part of their political/ruling structure). I would argue that it is a characteristic that is often found in "communist" regimes, but are not simply limited to communist countries.

I agree.

What are the characteristics the China's current political regime possess that makes them different from other authoritative nations that would justify the description of communism? In my opinion, communism speaks more to an economic continuum more than a political

Well it still espouses social engineering - witness its one child policy. It also still possesses a proletarian culture; for example, China is still theoretically atheistic (although obviously it is far more liberal on religion than during the days of the cultural revolution). Religion? ''opium of the masses'' etc. China also sees itself, historically, as belonging to the same movement that began with 'the Long March' and ended with Mao's victory in 1949. There has been no distinct historical breakage between 1949, and now - just a liberalisation from 1978 onwards. The Chinese themselves like to demarcate their history into quite distinct (formally dynastic) eras.

Throughout this thread I've always made it clear that my point isn't to defend communism, as I do see it as highly flawed ideology that attributes far too much credit to humanity's ability to govern oneself. A valid economic critique of communism is based on Marx's lack of understanding related to human psychology - that there is no account for the motivation/incentive principle that drives most human beings. The desire to have more is a profound driver of human's existence and any economic system organized around the notion of shared property will like fail for the sheer reason that it denies one of man's basic instincts. Whereas unbridled capitalism sees greed as a benign force, communism errs in believing it can be eradicated altogether.

And I do agree that communism must often be implemented on the back of an authoritarian regime. From a political perspective, that will never work and runs contrary to the very spirit of what communism promotes (worker control over production). It is an ideology that is incapable of implementation.

So it has never been my intention to provide a full-throated defense of communism. My objection all along has been that much of the exploitation that is found in the world can be traced back to more than just the ideological or practical invocation of communism. To reduce such suffering as a mere product of communism in the example provided by the OP is to exonerate many other factors that are involved. If the OP's example had taken place in China between 1949 and 1978 (or even arguably until the early 1990s), then I would agree that communism could conceivably be held responsible. If this incident were to occur in North Korea, again, I would be inclined to agree with the OP and KK. But the example given by the OP takes place in 2013, in a country that has long ago moved beyond communist economic theory. There are so many forces at play in China that to assign culpability on communist ideology or how it has been practiced to this particular instance of exploitation is a tad myopic.

I'm not sure if either of you (or anyone else who's still paying attention) are familiar with Nassim Nicholas Taleb's book The Black Swan (not to be confused with the movie). In it he outlines the narrative fallacy, which describes how humans are biologically inclined to turn complex realities into oversimplified stories. We often squeeze unrelated facts and events into cause-and-effect equations and then convert them into easily understandable narratives. Taleb argues that the narrative fallacy shields humanity from the true randomness of the world, the chaos of human experience, and the unnerving element of luck that plays into all success or failures.

I think this dynamic is at play in this thread, where it's just easier to say that communism is responsible for exploitation in China today than actually examine the multitude of factors that explain such tragedy. If you're arguing that communism is responsible for exploitation in China today, you would have to ignore the growing role of private property in government policy, the increasing presence of both domestic and international corporations in China's economy, and the fact that similar exploitation takes place in neighboring countries that have never been considered communist in nature.