Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 4.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-08-2013, 07:32 AM
RE: Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
The problem, IMO, is not that there is wealth inequality (I agree that this isn't necessarily a bad thing), it's that they actively claim to be a communist state when they are so clearly not. Wealth inequality is to say the least, not communist.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2013, 08:09 AM
RE: Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
(10-08-2013 07:32 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  The problem, IMO, is not that there is wealth inequality (I agree that this isn't necessarily a bad thing), it's that they actively claim to be a communist state when they are so clearly not. Wealth inequality is to say the least, not communist.

'Communist' leaders through history seem to disagree.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2013, 06:54 PM
RE: Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
(10-08-2013 08:09 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(10-08-2013 07:32 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  The problem, IMO, is not that there is wealth inequality (I agree that this isn't necessarily a bad thing), it's that they actively claim to be a communist state when they are so clearly not. Wealth inequality is to say the least, not communist.

'Communist' leaders through history seem to disagree.

Because they weren't actually communists. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
17-08-2013, 09:23 AM
RE: Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
(09-08-2013 07:02 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Compared to the inequality in the majority of socialist states, like Sweden (found below), China has disgusting wealth inequality.

[Image: 03242011_sweden1_charts.ashx?w=570&a...p;amp;as=1]

Even the United States isn't comparable, since the average annual salary in the U.S is nearly thirty times that of the average Chinese annual salary. I find the U.S' wealth inequality to be a disgrace, so how should I feel about China's?

Like what Hafnof said, China is still a developing country. So comparing a welcomed free country in the west, a neutral state in both world wars with a bonus of 37.3 tons of gold from the Germany National Bank, to a country colonized by a savage nationality for 200 hundred years, invaded by Britain, France and Japan, having paid huge sums of indemnity imposed by unjust treaties, invaded by Japan again and again, slaughtered, plundered and colonized by Japan, and finally blamed as a totalitarian country and blockaded for advanced technology from the born of this nation (by CCMEC in Paris from 1949 on) till now (mainly for super high precision machining centers). Plus according to economics experts like the Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, China has been predicted to collapse real soon since 1999, therefore I think, you comparison is a tiny bit unfair.

Anyway, I studied the "Sweden" figure you provided, and found that there is no counterpart data on the Chinese side in the figures you provided previously. So, unfortunately, your argument still lacks grounds. So I can't say whether I agree with this or not.

And about the salary comparison, I think if you can provide a comparison based on the actual buying power rather than the absolute numbers, it will be better. But still I agree with you on that the Chinese workers' annual salary is much less than their US counterpart's. And an increase is definitely necessary. I absolutely agree with the increase of my salary, with me being one member of the Chinese labor force.

Here's some basics about socialism. Socialism starts with the socialization of means of production, begining with the ownership of the land. All land in China has been state-owned since 1953. No for Sweden, from the start.

(09-08-2013 07:02 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  What do you think should be done to create a smooth transition into wealth?

Put China on a continent with vast oceans to the east and to the west. Bless China with extensive plains and rich natural resources and lame neighbors like Mexico. Practically bleed out the World Island (on which there should be the all of rest of the major powers, including the US) in a world war, and make China a savior and creditor to them. Of course China could use tremendous quantities of cheap foreign oil up for grab from protectorates. And finally vaporize 79% of China's 1.4 billion population, i.e., kill off 1.1 billion Chinese people.

After all that, I think China will smoothly transition into wealth, somewhat in the way the US did.

(09-08-2013 07:02 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  It is unrestrained capitalism. Communism relies on a centralized economic system, which has failed numerous times. The reason China has made a transition into a more capitalistic system is because it is the only one that encourages growth. Would you agree that the ideal economic system is a mixed one?

Communism, by strict standards, never existed, let alone having failed. And capitalism is never a simple concept, and not the only way that encourages growth. And there is no ideal economic system. It's relatively easier for us to reflect on history and say, "this is good, that is better". Yet no matter what you've achieved, there are always some people ready to say, "you could have done better".

(09-08-2013 07:02 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  China still pridefully defines themselves as a communist state, so of course we get to laugh at your government's inaccurate portrayal.

No, I disagree. In early 1980s, the CCP and the Chinese government began to define China as a state at the PRIMARY Stage of SOCIALISM with Chinese Characteristics. The official portrayal has been like that ever since. Wiki reference.

(09-08-2013 07:02 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  The inequality is still rampant and grossly underestimated. Your government is reluctant to increase wages because it would drive away business.

In the past, maybe so. Now, maybe not. At least Wall Street Journals said that the wages in China was increasing rapidly.


To sum it up, I regard your criticism of China as honoring her as a major player of the world and compliments on her achievements, after having contemplated on where she started her journey and what she has gone through.

I don't like the poverty and income inequality situation in China now. I don't like it very much. And it is the responsibility of this leadership of China to significantly reduce poverty and make those beneficiaries of China's previous reform and opening-up policies, who have got well-off first, to practically shoulder their true responsibilities.


Have fun on this weekend.

Want something? Then do something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2013, 09:29 AM
RE: Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
(09-08-2013 07:22 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I have one question for honorable Chinese Communist.
When I travel to the Heavenly Kingdom, will they say to me :
"Confucius say, Baseball got it all wrong — man with four balls cannot walk."

That is my only question.

No, they won't. Because:

[1] Confucius didn't say that and he lived in a time when the word ball didn't have that many meanings in colloquialism.

[2] In baseball, a man/player has three balls at most on the field.

[3] Men with four balls might be a new species of anthropoids. And don't under creatures' potentials -- their might still be able to walk.

Want something? Then do something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2013, 09:33 AM
RE: Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
(10-08-2013 04:06 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  The question here is income inequality, which is to say the distribution of wealth across a country. The assumption is that it is inherently bad to have income inequality. I don't accept that temporary income inequality is inherently bad. That's like saying it's inherently bad for molecules of water at the base of a kettle to be significantly hotter than those at the top of the kettle when the kettle is first turned on. It isn't a stable situation, but to say it must never occur is to say that all groups within a society must have approximately the same income (or all molecules in the kettle to have approximately the same temperature) at all times. That doesn't allow time for income to flow from one area of the economy to another area, and isn't a reasonable expectation.

Income inequality is an unstable situation as I say, and in a developed economy is a bad thing. In a developing economy it does take time to resolve such things, and although an area of concern is not in and of itself a critical failing. Hong Kong, Shanghai, all of the special administrative regions... these areas have greater wealth than other regions of the country. Cities such as Bejing or Nanjing where people are still moving from subsistence farming into city living have inherent income inequality as those with nothing become integrated into city society.

A generation ago China was experiencing widespread starvation and economic ruin. This generation China is able to feed itself, is able to stand on its own two feet, and is able to compete internationally. That's a massive shift in a short period of time, and it's absolutely true that this wealth hasn't been distributed through the population at this time.

Noone is asking anyone to lower their standards, but to expect China to be a developed economy when it is clearly not a developed economy but instead a developing economy is not logically sound. "Compared to the inequality in the majority of socialist states, like Sweden (found below), China has disgusting wealth inequality." is an accurate but a meaningless statement. Sweden has a modern developed economy and has had plenty of time for economic inequality to work its way out of the system. China has not had the time these quirks need to resolve themselves.

Why would you expect China's economy to meet the standards of a developed economy?

I agree with you. And after having all that Industrial Revolution history and lessons recorded in writing and photographs, I really hope China can do a little better than that.

Have a nice weekend.

Want something? Then do something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2013, 06:13 PM
RE: Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
tl;dr, you're a dumb cunt.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2013, 07:29 AM
RE: Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
First of all a communist cannot exist on declarations alone. The only known communists that ever existed are the ones that would and do practice the basic tenet of "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs". This means of course that any family anywhere on earth whose parents love each other, whose children love their parents as the parents love their children can actually be considered communistic.
This means that no nation has ever been communistic just as no human has ever been christian, or jewish or any other religious practitioner. All of them and I do mean ALL are merely declarative opportunists living in scarcity or the threat of scarcity and behaving accordingly. They are ALL phoney.
IOWs it is an impossibility for Communism to exist among human beings until the problem of scarcity is resolved. Then it can and will become automatic. The only solution to the end of scarcity or it's threat is the development of Fusion Power which is a necessity for the quality of human intellectual capability to be made a reality.
The present system of scarcity and the price system must and will break down before human beings can realize their potential through the introduction of something like the Venus Project. If this does not happen then the probability of a return to the practices of old is very high and a repeat of the past is inevitable.
Personally I am very pessimistic regarding the future and I am old enough to be assured that it will not happen in my lifetime. However those I leave behind may very well suffer the consequences of a continued scarcity.Sad
Of course this is speculation on my part. I know that. However Human beings have always resorted to methods of the past before they are introduced to newer or different approaches to problem solving. The Price system has never solved any problems except the problem of individual wealth
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2013, 05:20 AM
RE: Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
(24-08-2013 07:29 AM)Joemailman Wrote:  First of all a communist cannot exist on declarations alone. The only known communists that ever existed are the ones that would and do practice the basic tenet of "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs". This means of course that any family anywhere on earth whose parents love each other, whose children love their parents as the parents love their children can actually be considered communistic.
This means that no nation has ever been communistic just as no human has ever been christian, or Jewish or any other religious practitioner. All of them and I do mean ALL are merely declarative opportunists living in scarcity or the threat of scarcity and behaving accordingly. They are ALL phony.
IOWs it is an impossibility for Communism to exist among human beings until the problem of scarcity is resolved. Then it can and will become automatic. The only solution to the end of scarcity or it's threat is the development of Fusion Power which is a necessity for the quality of human intellectual capability to be made a reality.

I agree.

(24-08-2013 07:29 AM)Joemailman Wrote:  The present system of scarcity and the price system must and will break down before human beings can realize their potential through the introduction of something like the Venus Project. If this does not happen then the probability of a return to the practices of old is very high and a repeat of the past is inevitable.
Personally I am very pessimistic regarding the future and I am old enough to be assured that it will not happen in my lifetime. However those I leave behind may very well suffer the consequences of a continued scarcity.Sad
Of course this is speculation on my part. I know that. However Human beings have always resorted to methods of the past before they are introduced to newer or different approaches to problem solving. The Price system has never solved any problems except the problem of individual wealth

I agree. And I think I won't see Communism happening in my lifetime. But I do think we will have it one day, in the same name or not. I work and also do my share paving the way.

Want something? Then do something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2013, 10:10 PM
RE: Ask a (GASP) CHINESE COMMUNIST ! ! !
@HU.Junyuan, I'm an American, but one thing that annoys me about my countrymen is the hypocrisy of accusing China of not being a free country, and claiming the US is the land of the free. If you take the literal, actual definition of "free", there are only 3 countries in the world that are NOT free: Cuba, North Korea, and the US. China is a free country, the US is not.

How to decide if someone is "free" is actually pretty easy. A man is sitting in a prison cell. What is the one thing that determines if he is a free man or prisoner? That's obvious: If he's a free man, he can leave.

Next, assume you are talking to someone working in a company (say a "sweat shop" in Indonesia). He complains that the company confiscates most of his pay, imposes rules about what he can do in his private life, demands that he report everything he does in his life and restricts where is able to go. He says he is a slave, and is not free. So, what is the test to determine if he is indeed a slave or if he is free? As always, it is if he is free to leave. If the company does not put up any barriers preventing him from leaving, and he chooses to stay and voluntarily subjects himself to the rules of the company, then he is a free. Of course, whether he can physically leave the company's premises is not the issue. He is still a slave if, once outside the company, he is required to report back to the company all his activities and location, and return upon demand. Technically, a man is free only if he has freedom of mobility (the right to leave and opt out of the system completely).

Finally, take the previous paragraph with the scenario about the sweatshop, and replace the word "company" with "country", and you now have a test for whether a country is free or not. An attorney in international law can confirm that all countries of the world pass that test as being "free", including China. The only exceptions are Cuba, North Korea, and the US. In China, yes, you have lots of rules, and the government makes you report all your activities and pay taxes on them, and restricts what you can say and do, etc. But, the US does the same, just to a lesser degree. The US also censors what we can say (see what happened to Lavabit), it also has a 'great firewall' to block Americans from visiting sites it deems 'unhealthy' (try visiting pokerstars.com from the US). It also goes after journalists (Wikileaks), and it also locks up whistle-blowers who report state crimes (Manning, Snowden, etc.). It is drawing a line in the sand to say that the degree China does this is criminal, but the US is not. The big objective difference between the two countries is that the Chinese are there willingly, and if they don't like the rules, they're free to leave, and once they take up residency outside China, they are no longer bound by those rules. But, what about in the US?

What happened when Bobby Fischer, the famous chess champion, was fed up with the US, gave up his US residency and took up residency outside the US, eventually marrying a Japanese woman, and while he was not a US resident he went to the former Yugoslavia to earn a living playing in a chess championship? If he was Chinese, French, Korean, or any nationality, it would not have been a problem. Since he was no longer a resident, he has no obligations to his homeland. But, because he was American, he was indicted for tax evasion for not surrendering the money he made from the tournament, and was also charged with illegally going to Yugoslavia, because, even if though he give up his US residency, he was still forced to abide by US laws. He was not allowed to leave the system. The US then pressured Japan to arrest him and extradite him to the US. This shocked the rest of the world, most of whom didn't realize American's aren't free to leave, and the parliament of Iceland granted him immediate Icelandic citizenship so that they too could claim him as an Icelander, and they got Japan to hand him over to Iceland instead of the US. In the rest of the world, the government provides services and the people voluntarily pay for those services by paying taxes and obeying the laws. And if they decide it's not worth it, they simply leave, and once they are not using the services, they have no obligation to pay for them or follow the laws.

But in North Korea, Cuba and the US, your obligations to the government are NOT in exchange for voluntarily accepting services from the government. Rather, those 3 governments legislate that, if you were born within their borders, the country owns you for life and can restrict where you can go (like not going to Yugoslavia or Cuba), and you are obligated for life to report everything you do and surrender it back to your homeland, which will determine how much it will take and how much it will let you keep. North Korea and Cuba are not super powers and do not have the might to force other countries to extradite their citizens who refuse to comply. If they did, if North Korea and Cuba had a way of forcing their citizens abroad to surrender all the fruits of their labor back to the homeland, they would gladly let their citizens work in other countries since it means sending back hard currency. But they do not have the power to force other countries to return their citizens who do not comply, like the US, so the only way to ensure North Korea and Cuba continue to get the fruits of their citizen's labor is to militarize the border and use force to prevent their people from crossing.

The US policy also made news last year with facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin. He was born and raised in Brazil, but later came to the US and became a US citizen. However, he later decided he didn't want anything to do with the US and took up residency in Singapore. Because of his US citizenship, however, he was forced to continue paying US taxes, even though he wasn't receiving any US services--something no other country requires. So, because he was Brazilian and had another citizenship, he was able to renounce his US citizenship, and, as required by US law when one renounces citizenship, pay an exit tax, which is the equivalent of liquidating all your assets. Eduardo did NOT escape from paying taxes on his facebook profit in the US by revoking his citizenship, all he did was relieve himself of the duty to pay taxes going forward in subsequent years. US Congressmen condemned this, and called it a "loophole" that a Brazilian national was allowed to 'escape' after liquidating all his US assets, pay taxes on all his activities while he was in the US. They insisted that coming to the US should, essentially, be a one-way ticket, where once you entered, you were stuck for life with no means of escape, no matter how oppressive US laws become.

China is nothing like this. Anyone can come to China, work and make their fortune, pay taxes WHILE THEY ARE THERE, and then if they've had enough, or feel the communist party has too much power, they can leave--no strings attached, and no further obligations.

It should also be noted that the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights declares 'freedom of movement', namely the right to leave, a fundamental human right. However, the US has refused to accept the requirements of this law (China does by the way). The UN Human Rights Committee has condemned the US for it's refusal to abide by basic human rights, and to not allow its citizens to sue for basic human rights under international law (see Hain v. Gibson).

Just a little something for you when Americans attack China for not being free.

BTW, I'm a libertarian. So I have no problem with socialism or communism, so long as the participants are given the right to leave. If, for example, back when the states were joining the union, Oregon was a communist haven, and the people of Oregon wanted a system where all property was owned by the State, I feel they should be allowed to make that choice, provided everybody there is allowed to leave. My problem with socialism/communism is not the ideal -- that is noble -- it's simply the practical implementation that, as you say, we're not uber efficient, we need a profit motive to function, and so when it didn't work and people tried to leave, the government resorted to force to block their escape. However, now that China allows people to leave, I think it's fine that they practice any system they want, and that we should respect it. Besides, China removed the ban on private ownership of the means of production and private property, allowing for a private, market-driven voluntary economy, so China is not even communist anyway, so I don't know why the US thinks it has the right to look down on China. Like China, the US has some industries that it has confiscated from the private sector and nationalized (passenger rail, airport screening, etc.). So the US does the same thing as China, and it's purely arbitrary to say where the line in the sand is drawn.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: