Communism in China [Archive] - Yellowworld Forums

rakovlam

02-05-2003, 07:30 PM

Your professor is an idiot. The reason Chinese communism succeeded was it was at least better than the warlords and monarchies of the past. If the nationalist remained in China then it would have become what Taiwan is right now: a free and economic power. The United States have a common language and culture despite the variety of people. A country cannot force a group to assimilate. The Cultural Revolution not only destroyed Chinese culture, but it also set back decades of progress. China is lucky to be a power today. India is a horrible example when they can just compare themselves to Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Until a decade ago China can barely compete with a small island, and even smaller island, and an even smaller penninsula. I believe the Kuomingtong, despite the rampant corruption (as much as the CCP), would make China an even bigger success.

The economic reforms in China is an attempt to create what I call The Economic Matrix (as in the movie). When China supply its people with all the products and wealth they ever want, the Chinese in turn would overlook the censorship, torture, and persecution that occurs within the country.

AliBabaIncorporated

02-05-2003, 07:43 PM

KMT were a bunch of criminals and bandits. but at least they probably would have left the farming and banking sectors alone.

rakovlam

02-05-2003, 07:45 PM

KMT were a bunch of criminals and bandits. but at least they probably would have left the farming and banking sectors alone.

The CCP are a bunch of crooks, thugs, AND tyrants.

thaite

02-05-2003, 09:04 PM

I don't think it is communism that China needed more than the revolution that threw off old chains.

Can't say I like the new chains much, though.

BaiginLong

02-05-2003, 09:32 PM

I am very much anti-CCP for personal, political, and economic reasons
they were probably the worst thing that happened to China period
errr...excluding the trade ship recall during the 1400's I think (when the Chinese were about to go around the cape of South Africa)

SunWuKong

02-06-2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by BaiginLong@Feb 6 2003, 12:32 AM
I am very much anti-CCP for personal, political, and economic reasons
they were probably the worst thing that happened to China period
i don't agree with that. pre-1949 CCP did a lot of good for the people of china. they redistributed land from oppressive landlords and gave them to the peasants, they advocated women's rights and did away with institutionalised gender bias (at least on the surface), they educated and organised poor peasants, etc etc. it was post-1949 and mao zedong's egotistical nature that kept china back for decades. i am very convinced that had zhou enlai been the one that was running things instead of mao zedong, china would have moved forward right after liberation. the economic reforms that deng xiaoping started in the early 80s were something that zhou enlai, deng xiaoping's mentor, told him to do.

it's pretty useless to speculate what would have happened if the nationalists had won, but i would be willing to bet that chiang kai shek would have oppressed the chinese people just like the dynastic emperors. he was very much so an elitist. in a worse case scenario, he could have caused china to break up altogether. he was already conceeding land to western powers. his power base was barely centralised - it was made up of a loose network of regional landlords that competed with each other.

using taiwan as a model for what could have happend in china is not fair either. taiwan is a small island and china is a vast country. the administrative difference can mean success or failure. it's not exactly difficult for the nationalists to consolidate power all on one small island - in fact they did so by slaughtering native taiwanese people. and much of taiwan's economic success came from the fact that the KMT took a lot of wealth from china to taiwan when it escaped to the island - in fact the KMT is still the wealthiest political party in the world.

blue__blood

02-06-2003, 10:14 PM

They also did two other things right: gun control and narcotics control.

Do I believe communism is good for China? I don't know. Tyrants they may be but I believe that tyrants we need to control a large, lowly educated population.

VV o n g B a

02-07-2003, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by blue__blood@Feb 7 2003, 12:14 AM
They also did two other things right: gun control and narcotics control.
i don't think they controlled narcotics in an especially good way. effective maybe... but not a good way. my uncle was an opium addict. when the commies came, they drug him out of his house, doused him with gasoline and lit him up. he wasn't a good guy b/c he took family money for his addiction, but certainly thats a little harsh. they could have just shot him in the head.

rakovlam

02-07-2003, 11:37 AM

They also did two other things right: gun control and narcotics control.

What, the guns of criminals? I doubt it. Gun control laws can only disarm law-abiding citizens. That's why the UK is so crime ridden right now. The CCP succeeded in things any democracy can do, even do better.

SunWuKong

02-07-2003, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by rakovlam@Feb 7 2003, 02:37 PM

What, the guns of criminals?  I doubt it.  Gun control laws can only disarm law-abiding citizens.  That's why the UK is so crime ridden right now.  The CCP succeeded in things any democracy can do, even do better.
no, actually he's right. gun control in china and also in other asian countries have been very effective so far. this is not to say that absolutely no criminals have guns. but to the best of my knowledge, the average common thug would not have guns, only important figures in organised crime.

the reason i think gun control would not work in america is because we'll only ever have half-assed gun control policies, which would result in exactly what you said - the disarming of law-abiding citizens instead of criminals.

SunWuKong

02-07-2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by rakovlam@Feb 7 2003, 02:37 PM
The CCP succeeded in things any democracy can do, even do better.
i'm sorry, and no offense, but that is laughable.

VV o n g B a

02-07-2003, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by rakovlam@Feb 7 2003, 01:37 PM
The CCP succeeded in things any democracy can do, even do better.
err, please give some examples... :huh:

rakovlam

02-07-2003, 01:08 PM

The CCP succeeded in things any democracy can do, even do better.

Excuse me, but let me rephrase the sentence. Any democracy can do whatever the CCP is doing right now. Not only that, if China was democracy, it could succeed even more. But that's just hypothetical since for over 50 years China has been under one-party rule which, in my opinion, is China's biggest failures.

SunWuKong

02-07-2003, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by tazadar@Feb 7 2003, 06:53 PM
I think the current CPC is doing a fine job moving 1.3 billion people. What's makes you think a US-like political system works well in PRC's situation? We have a moronic President sitting in the Oval Office. Is that so great?
well i don't know. the PRC needs a lot of reform.

rakovlam

02-07-2003, 06:21 PM

I think the current CPC is doing a fine job moving 1.3 billion people. What's makes you think a US-like political system works well in PRC's situation? We have a moronic President sitting in the Oval Office. Is that so great?

We're in America ranting about what Coble said online and meanwhile China just shut down thousands of internet cafes for "safety" reasons. Here, Chinese people can become Christians and annoy the heck out of us while in China many Christians worship in secret chapels run by foreign missionaries. Also, China is persecuting them and the loonies of Falun Gong. Of course, it would have been more than 1.3 billion people if it wasn't for the 80 million girls "missing" in China due to government sponsored abortions and a backwards view on females.

Here in America, presidents whom you call moronic can do well while moronic in China could mean decades of progress lost a Cultural Revolution later. No, I prefer two-party rule anytime (even if they are only democrats and republicans). I prefer freedom over wealth. The CCP must be challenged and soon.

SunWuKong

02-07-2003, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by rakovlam@Feb 7 2003, 09:21 PM

We're in America ranting about what Coble said online and meanwhile China just shut down thousands of internet cafes for "safety" reasons.  Here, Chinese people can become Christians and annoy the heck out of us while in China many Christians worship in secret chapels run by foreign missionaries.  Also, China is persecuting them and the loonies of Falun Gong.  Of course, it would have been more than 1.3 billion people if it wasn't for the 80 million girls "missing" in China due to government sponsored abortions and a backwards view on females.  

Here in America, presidents whom you call moronic can do well while moronic in China could mean decades of progress lost a Cultural Revolution later.  No, I prefer two-party rule anytime (even if they are only democrats and republicans).  I prefer freedom over wealth.  The CCP must be challenged and soon.
except for the freedom over wealth bit, i'd have to agree with rakovlam here. as much as we have to complain about the US government, we've still got one of the best systems in the world going for us. china has a long long way to go in terms of political reforms.

however, rakovlam, i think it's a little naive for you to say that you prefer freedom over wealth when you live in the richest country in the world. i think most people in china would disagree with you on that, especially the poor people. and anyway, money buys freedom. in china, as well as in the US.

BaiginLong

02-07-2003, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Feb 6 2003, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by BaiginLong@Feb 6 2003, 12:32 AM
I am very much anti-CCP for personal, political, and economic reasons
they were probably the worst thing that happened to China period
i don't agree with that. pre-1949 CCP did a lot of good for the people of china. they redistributed land from oppressive landlords and gave them to the peasants, they advocated women's rights and did away with institutionalised gender bias (at least on the surface), they educated and organised poor peasants, etc etc. it was post-1949 and mao zedong's egotistical nature that kept china back for decades. i am very convinced that had zhou enlai been the one that was running things instead of mao zedong, china would have moved forward right after liberation. the economic reforms that deng xiaoping started in the early 80s were something that zhou enlai, deng xiaoping's mentor, told him to do.

it's pretty useless to speculate what would have happened if the nationalists had won, but i would be willing to bet that chiang kai shek would have oppressed the chinese people just like the dynastic emperors. he was very much so an elitist. in a worse case scenario, he could have caused china to break up altogether. he was already conceeding land to western powers. his power base was barely centralised - it was made up of a loose network of regional landlords that competed with each other.

using taiwan as a model for what could have happend in china is not fair either. taiwan is a small island and china is a vast country. the administrative difference can mean success or failure. it's not exactly difficult for the nationalists to consolidate power all on one small island - in fact they did so by slaughtering native taiwanese people. and much of taiwan's economic success came from the fact that the KMT took a lot of wealth from china to taiwan when it escaped to the island - in fact the KMT is still the wealthiest political party in the world.
some of those "oppressive landlords" weren't exactly what you call oppressive and for one my greatgrandfather on my mother's side was oone of them and was executed in public because he was simply a well to do scholar
my grandfather on my mother's side then ran to hong kong and left my mother and her mother and grandmother all alone to fend for themselves and later on he was killed by a street gang there
they denied my mother many opportunities for higher education until she was in her 30's just because of her family history
my father became a refugee in Hong Kong in his teens along with the rest of his family and there he picked up a few bad vices (drinking, gambling, women) that ruined my life permanently

so you can say they did an overall "good" for China but I definitely do not see it

SunWuKong

02-08-2003, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by BaiginLong@Feb 8 2003, 02:53 AM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Feb 6 2003, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by BaiginLong@Feb 6 2003, 12:32 AM
I am very much anti-CCP for personal, political, and economic reasons
they were probably the worst thing that happened to China period
i don't agree with that. pre-1949 CCP did a lot of good for the people of china. they redistributed land from oppressive landlords and gave them to the peasants, they advocated women's rights and did away with institutionalised gender bias (at least on the surface), they educated and organised poor peasants, etc etc. it was post-1949 and mao zedong's egotistical nature that kept china back for decades. i am very convinced that had zhou enlai been the one that was running things instead of mao zedong, china would have moved forward right after liberation. the economic reforms that deng xiaoping started in the early 80s were something that zhou enlai, deng xiaoping's mentor, told him to do.

it's pretty useless to speculate what would have happened if the nationalists had won, but i would be willing to bet that chiang kai shek would have oppressed the chinese people just like the dynastic emperors. he was very much so an elitist. in a worse case scenario, he could have caused china to break up altogether. he was already conceeding land to western powers. his power base was barely centralised - it was made up of a loose network of regional landlords that competed with each other.

using taiwan as a model for what could have happend in china is not fair either. taiwan is a small island and china is a vast country. the administrative difference can mean success or failure. it's not exactly difficult for the nationalists to consolidate power all on one small island - in fact they did so by slaughtering native taiwanese people. and much of taiwan's economic success came from the fact that the KMT took a lot of wealth from china to taiwan when it escaped to the island - in fact the KMT is still the wealthiest political party in the world.
some of those "oppressive landlords" weren't exactly what you call oppressive and for one my greatgrandfather on my mother's side was oone of them and was executed in public because he was simply a well to do scholar
my grandfather on my mother's side then ran to hong kong and left my mother and her mother and grandmother all alone to fend for themselves and later on he was killed by a street gang there
they denied my mother many opportunities for higher education until she was in her 30's just because of her family history
my father became a refugee in Hong Kong in his teens along with the rest of his family and there he picked up a few bad vices (drinking, gambling, women) that ruined my life permanently

so you can say they did an overall "good" for China but I definitely do not see it
definitely not trying to defend what they did to the landlords here. there needed to be redistribution of wealth, but what the communists did to the landlords was atrocious. and post 1949 mainland china under mao rule were definitely some of the worst decades in modern chinese history.

rakovlam

02-08-2003, 07:02 AM

money buys freedom

Well, so far I didn't have to pay for any of my rights. I signed up to YW at no cost. It costs nothing to join my school paper (though thanks to lack of appreciation from my HS, we raise our own funds for the paper). I can always contest a parking ticket in court or argue with the administration at my school at no extra charge. This year, I'll be eligable to vote; I'm not paying for that. Being rich or even in an upper-middle class isn't really that great. I am sure being poor isn't that great either but I've seen rich kids in my school think more about money and their cars than their friends. It's okay to attain wealth but no one is going to buy my freedom. This is exactly what China is doing. They give their people all the products in the world and in turn they would overlook any atrocities China would do.

syc

02-08-2003, 08:50 AM

The KMT lost the civil war because they didnt have the support of the people, they spent just as much time fighting the the CCP as they did against the Japanese, so there's no point arguing how things would be if they were in power.

There are good and bad things that came from the adoption of communism. Obviously the bad points are that tens of millions of people died during the Great Leap and the cultural revolution. But look at China then and look at it now. I dont agree with most of the things the CCP did but China has definetly come a long way in 50 years. China now actually has some say in international affairs as well as the power to back it up.

Theres not much freedom at all, thats true, but you cant judge countries like China by western standards. Just a hundred years ago we were still being ruled by an emporer and being "civilised" by white people in cities like Shanghai and Hong Kong. Democracy is still a long way away but with the opening of China to the world it is getting harder and harder to keep ideas of political freedom out. The government cant ignore the people forever.

SunWuKong

02-08-2003, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by rakovlam@Feb 8 2003, 10:02 AM
money buys freedomWell,so far I didn't have to pay for any of my rights. I signed up to YW at no cost. It costs nothing to join my school paper (though thanks to lack of appreciation from my HS, we raise our own funds for the paper). I can always contest a parking ticket in court or argue with the administration at my school at no extra charge. This year, I'll be eligable to vote; I'm not paying for that. Being rich or even in an upper-middle class isn't really that great. I am sure being poor isn't that great either but I've seen rich kids in my school think more about money and their cars than their friends. It's okay to attain wealth but no one is going to buy my freedom. This is exactly what China is doing. They give their people all the products in the world and in turn they would overlook any atrocities China would do.
i got one word for you: OJ
can you imagine where he'd be now if he had a public defendent?

what gives you the mobility you need for after school activities? do you take the bus home after you're done with your extra-curricular activities? or maybe you drive home, or are driven home. how lucky for you - a car. did you know ID is required to even be admitted to a homeless shelter? do you think anybody would give you any forms of identification if you didn't even have the money to pay for the processing fees? how does your school have a school newspaper in the first place? it gets funding for it - money. do you think you'd be able to register for selective service if you did not have a permanent address? if you do not register with selective service do you think you'll be eligible to vote?

SunWuKong

02-08-2003, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by syc@Feb 8 2003, 11:50 AM
There are good and bad things that came from the adoption of communism. Obviously the bad points are that tens of millions of people died during the Great Leap and the cultural revolution.
you can blame mao for that. i'm almost convinced that had someone else been in charge, someone like zhou enlai, the great leap and the cultural revolution wouldn't have happened. so i don't think it's communism per se.

kangal

02-08-2003, 03:00 PM

well...to draw back to my waaaay original point, i just wonder why China didn't go the same route as India in the post-WWII era; I had tried to look at the similarities since China and India had been considered 2nd-world countries; the most dramatic distinction in my mind was overpopulation, too many languages, and religious/cultural ties that hold India back....i just happened to correlate the fact that the prc kind of foresaw those problems in their controversial policies such as the one-family-one-child and others that were arguably failiures/successess.....

SunWuKong

02-08-2003, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by kangal@Feb 8 2003, 06:00 PM
well...to draw back to my waaaay original point, i just wonder why China didn't go the same route as India in the post-WWII era; I had tried to look at the similarities since China and India had been considered 2nd-world countries; the most dramatic distinction in my mind was overpopulation, too many languages, and religious/cultural ties that hold India back....i just happened to correlate the fact that the prc kind of foresaw those problems in their controversial policies such as the one-family-one-child and others that were arguably failiures/successess.....
it's because china is authoritorian and india is a democracy (or is it closer to a republic?).

kangal

02-08-2003, 03:12 PM

it's because china is authoritorian and india is a democracy (or is it closer to a republic?).

bingo....i find it ironic that in order to become a capitalistic society, you need authoritarians.....

VV o n g B a

02-08-2003, 03:14 PM

too many languages isn't really indian democracy's fault. they didn't have shi huang di to get everybody on the same page (kinda). if china didn't have the unified background, it may still have turned out to look like india. or the former russian republics even.

kangal

02-08-2003, 03:23 PM

too many languages isn't really indian democracy's fault.

too many languages is a fault of democracy....everyone has a voice....thus there's going to be several tongues along with the voices.....throughtout history, having a unified language has been a symbol of totalitarian governments (germany, yugoslavia, ussr) i think its a trademark of democracies to say that the freedom of speech includes how to speak....

VV o n g B a

02-08-2003, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by kangal@Feb 8 2003, 05:23 PM

too many languages is a fault of democracy....everyone has a voice....thus there's going to be several tongues along with the voices.....throughtout history, having a unified language has been a symbol of totalitarian governments (germany, yugoslavia, ussr) i think its a trademark of democracies to say that the freedom of speech includes how to speak....
to clarify, i meant it's not the current indian gov'ts fault. their past rulers never saw fit to impose the measures that past chinese rules did even tho india surely had its share of authoritarian rulers.

SunWuKong

02-08-2003, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by kangal@Feb 8 2003, 06:12 PM

bingo....i find it ironic that in order to become a capitalistic society, you need authoritarians.....
i don't find it ironic at all. it's how fascism works.

SunWuKong

02-08-2003, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by kangal@Feb 8 2003, 06:23 PM

too many languages is a fault of democracy....everyone has a voice....thus there's going to be several tongues along with the voices.....throughtout history, having a unified language has been a symbol of totalitarian governments (germany, yugoslavia, ussr) i think its a trademark of democracies to say that the freedom of speech includes how to speak....
well china has many different dialects too. the difference is that china has only one written language, and the fact that it's not phonetic - and that's been a unifying force in china. and india does have national languages - hindi and english. i don't think language is the problem in india.

blkazngirl

02-08-2003, 05:59 PM

It has its good points and it's bad.

yoMAMA

02-11-2003, 12:12 PM

Chinese has actually, two writen languages.

One is the traditional style, still used by Taiwan and HongKong.

The other one is the 'simplified style', which is UBER crap and an insult to Chinese traditions. Another job well done destroying Chinese traditions by Mao and those stupid commies! :angry:

When I was in mainland elementary school, I had to learn writing the simplified style.

SunWuKong

02-11-2003, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by yoMAMA@Feb 11 2003, 03:12 PM
Chinese has actually, two writen languages.

One is the traditional style, still used by Taiwan and HongKong.

The other one is the 'simplified style', which is UBER crap and an insult to Chinese traditions. Another job well done destroying Chinese traditions by Mao and those stupid commies! :angry:

When I was in mainland elementary school, I had to learn writing the simplified style.
eh... it's not difficult to read simplified if you're good enough with traditional. not sure about the other way around though. you know, they actually thought about abandoning the character written system altogether in the 60s and completely using pinyin (romanisation with roman alphabets, for those who didn't know). they thought that the difficulty in memorising so many characters was the cause of high illiteracy. but then they saw that HK and Taiwan were able to achieve high literacy rates despite using chinese characters, and realised that it was just because the country was damn poor and had a shitty education system.

AliBabaIncorporated

02-11-2003, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by yoMAMA@Feb 11 2003, 03:12 PM
Chinese has actually, two writen languages.

One is the traditional style, still used by Taiwan and HongKong.

The other one is the 'simplified style', which is UBER crap and an insult to Chinese traditions. Another job well done destroying Chinese traditions by Mao and those stupid commies! :angry:

When I was in mainland elementary school, I had to learn writing the simplified style.
whatever, everyone talks like that until they have to sit in a classroom taking notes in Chinese on a college-level lecture and need to write at a speed that actually keeps up with the professor. In HK, most of my classmates write their notes in simplified or in some style which is "destroying Chinese traditions." maybe you better go back to writing oracle-bone style if you're that concerned about tradition.

and simplified and traditional are "separate languages" like this portion of the sentence is a separate language from the rest..

AliBabaIncorporated

02-11-2003, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by kangal@Feb 8 2003, 06:23 PM

too many languages is a fault of democracy....everyone has a voice....thus there's going to be several tongues along with the voices.....throughtout history, having a unified language has been a symbol of totalitarian governments (germany, yugoslavia, ussr) i think its a trademark of democracies to say that the freedom of speech includes how to speak....
most modernization programs are usually accompanied by language reforms which put a certain dialect as the standard to be taught in schools.

deez nuts

02-11-2003, 05:03 PM

I have my own style of Chinese writing. When I write memos on my parents' prescription drugs on how to take them, when to take them, how often to take them, side effects etc etc. It's like all the Chinese characters are chained together, somewhat. It's more like Chinese character cursive writing :D

Oh man, I butcher the writing real bad.

yoMAMA

02-11-2003, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Feb 11 2003, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by yoMAMA@Feb 11 2003, 03:12 PM
Chinese has actually, two writen languages.

One is the traditional style, still used by Taiwan and HongKong.

The other one is the 'simplified style', which is UBER crap and an insult to Chinese traditions. Another job well done destroying Chinese traditions by Mao and those stupid commies!  :angry:

When I was in mainland elementary school, I had to learn writing the simplified style.
whatever, everyone talks like that until they have to sit in a classroom taking notes in Chinese on a college-level lecture and need to write at a speed that actually keeps up with the professor. In HK, most of my classmates write their notes in simplified or in some style which is "destroying Chinese traditions." maybe you better go back to writing oracle-bone style if you're that concerned about tradition.

and simplified and traditional are "separate languages" like this portion of the sentence is a separate language from the rest..
Chinese does have TWO written languages.

The traditional is the true form. Simplified is a artificially created by one man-MAO, and most people in Taiwan and HK can't understand it, and it also creates confusion in terms of its structure-espeically the radical part.

SunWuKong

02-11-2003, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by yoMAMA@Feb 11 2003, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Feb 11 2003, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by yoMAMA@Feb 11 2003, 03:12 PM
Chinese has actually, two writen languages.

One is the traditional style, still used by Taiwan and HongKong.

The other one is the 'simplified style', which is UBER crap and an insult to Chinese traditions. Another job well done destroying Chinese traditions by Mao and those stupid commies! :angry:

When I was in mainland elementary school, I had to learn writing the simplified style.
whatever, everyone talks like that until they have to sit in a classroom taking notes in Chinese on a college-level lecture and need to write at a speed that actually keeps up with the professor. In HK, most of my classmates write their notes in simplified or in some style which is "destroying Chinese traditions." maybe you better go back to writing oracle-bone style if you're that concerned about tradition.

and simplified and traditional are "separate languages" like this portion of the sentence is a separate language from the rest..
Chinese does have TWO written languages.

The traditional is the true form. Simplified is a artificially created by one man-MAO, and most people in Taiwan and HK can't understand it, and it also creates confusion in terms of its structure-espeically the radical part.
actually, it's not all that difficult for people who grew up reading traditional to read most simplified characters. i can't really do it myself but then again my reading ability isn't nearly as good as my local HKer friends, who tell me that it's not that difficult for them to read simplified.

deez nuts

02-11-2003, 06:17 PM

I never learned jian ti zhi just like I never learned pinyin. I went to school in Taiwan when I was young so we all learned feng ti zhi. But, I can read maybe like 60-70% of jian ti zhi and prolly deduce what a character I don't know is by the context of the sentence. Jian ti zhi is pretty wacky stuff. It's also used as subtitles in a lot of the Mainland i.e. Beijing soap opera videos my parents watch.

That crazy Mao and his "Wen Hwa Da Ga Ming"

AliBabaIncorporated

02-11-2003, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by yoMAMA@Feb 11 2003, 08:52 PM
The traditional is the true form. Simplified is a artificially created by one man-MAO,
and a committee of chinese linguists

and most people in Taiwan and HK can't understand it
yes, and this would be why the HK government decided to allow candidates of public examinations to write in simplified characters after increasing demand. and why half of Shenzhen Shu Cheng Bookstore's clientele is HKers buying reference books and textbooks despite the fact that they're in some foreign language called "simplified" which they allegedly can't understand at all.

and it also creates confusion in terms of its structure-espeically the radical part.
then learn four-corners lookup method or something.

writing is a tool. if it doesn't serve people's needs, change it as you see fit. taking a position against innovation just leads to stagnation and dogmatism.

airborneranger

02-11-2003, 07:07 PM

The hidden undemocratic system is the british type of system where the king or queen is protected to rule forever the prime minister is the one to blame

SunWuKong

02-11-2003, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Feb 11 2003, 09:31 PM
writing is a tool. if it doesn't serve people's needs, change it as you see fit. taking a position against innovation just leads to stagnation and dogmatism.
well ok, sure, but under this argument, the chinese government should also start switching over to pinyin entirely. isn't there something to be said about cultural authenticity when it comes to language?

AliBabaIncorporated

02-11-2003, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Feb 11 2003, 10:24 PM
well ok, sure, but under this argument, the chinese government should also start switching over to pinyin entirely. isn't there something to be said about cultural authenticity when it comes to language?
writing needs not only to be fast to put onto paper, but also readily understandable. pinyin isn't readily understandable to anyone.

here's a looooooong (http://www.vny2k.net/CaitoCachVietTiengViet-UniEng.htm) complaint about the problems Vietnamese romanization poses to easy recognition of morphemes ... though the author doesn't go as far as to recommend Vietnam return to Chinese characters, and is in fact opposed to the idea, but states:

This proposed writing reform, above all, ideally would expose monolingual native learners to symbolic patterns that would have positive effects on abstract and collective thinking by means of a polysyllabic way of writing, i.e., writing all syllables of a word in a combining formation. This is a part of the human cognitive process to be achieved via, one among other things, its pre-defined text strings of whole words that appear repetitively in peculiar shapes in their whole entirety and would resemble much more like graphical representation of concepts rather than individually syllabic spellings as in the case of the current monosyllabic writing of the Vietnamese language.  In fact, in a polysyllabic formation meanings of words, tightly bound to their symbolistic shapes that are made of combined syllables and those symbols, are to achieve the same effects as those of ideographs.

in simple language: make the spelling of words distinctive so that it's easier to recognize them and separate the meanings of homophones. e.g. move Vietnamese towards English-style spelling, but with even more inconsistencies due to the great number of homophones.

SunWuKong

02-11-2003, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Feb 11 2003, 11:13 PM
writing needs not only to be fast to put onto paper, but also readily understandable. pinyin isn't readily understandable to anyone.

here's a looooooong (http://www.vny2k.net/CaitoCachVietTiengViet-UniEng.htm) complaint about the problems Vietnamese romanization poses to easy recognition of morphemes ... though the author doesn't go as far as to recommend Vietnam return to Chinese characters, and is in fact opposed to the idea, but states:

in simple language: make the spelling of words distinctive so that it's easier to recognize them and separate the meanings of homophones. e.g. move Vietnamese towards English-style spelling, but with even more inconsistencies due to the great number of homophones.
ok, hehheh well i'm not going to argue the efficiency of linguistic styles and techniques with you. but you didn't answer my question - isn't there something to be said/valued in the cultural authenticity of languages?

ChinaLama

02-17-2003, 12:27 AM

I don't know why no one's mentioned this, but Communist China was also the first time almost EVERYONE (in the cities at least) had access to education! Ok, they kind of fucked it up w/ closing the schools during the Cultural Revolution, but before that, I think if it weren't for the Communist Party, a lot of poor people wouldn't have a chance to rise in life, including my father, who was born of illiterate parents.

The other thing is, Communist thought and especially Mao's thought is HEROIC. Maybe Tragic, but to have a tragedy, you need a hero. And no matter how much suffering came about, I think Mao's total faith in humanity's ability, whether to push forth industrialization in the Great Leap Forward, or to erase 5000 years of "backward ideas" in the Cultural Revolution. I mean, even a concept like a "Cultural Revolution" couldn't come out of an inherently conservative capitalist society.

kangal

02-17-2003, 01:05 AM

I mean, even a concept like a "Cultural Revolution" couldn't come out of an inherently conservative capitalist society.

yes sir....thats darn tootin right....i think that's why the US has so many problems whenever we try to deal with a new cultural issue...be it drugs, alcohol or abortion (and i swear, prohibition doesn't work! they closed the bars down early in my town....and speakeasies are popping up again!)

BeTheReds

02-17-2003, 01:55 AM

Communism is good for countries which are not industrialized. It also helps countries get on their feet after war.

IT is bad for nations with good economies and industrialization.

SunWuKong

02-17-2003, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by ChinaLama@Feb 17 2003, 03:27 AM
The other thing is, Communist thought and especially Mao's thought is HEROIC. Maybe Tragic, but to have a tragedy, you need a hero. And no matter how much suffering came about, I think Mao's total faith in humanity's ability, whether to push forth industrialization in the Great Leap Forward, or to erase 5000 years of "backward ideas" in the Cultural Revolution. I mean, even a concept like a "Cultural Revolution" couldn't come out of an inherently conservative capitalist society.
i don't know. mao was also an egomaniac, and at times even childish. there's really no doubt that part of the purpose of the cultural revolution was to oust influential leaders that mao thought was against him.

jenjen

08-30-2003, 08:03 AM

SunWuKong

08-30-2003, 09:40 AM

Your professor is an idiot. The reason Chinese communism succeeded was it was at least better than the warlords and monarchies of the past. If the nationalist remained in China then it would have become what Taiwan is right now: a free and economic power.

not true. the chinese culture of monarchies was thriving (silk road, marc o polo visit time) while in england people were suffering health problems because a sewerage system had not yet been developed. and it's rubbish to say that china WOULD have become what taiwan is not if the kmt had stayed. just look at the SIZE of china in comparison to tw for gods sake. look at the percentage of useless land/natural disaster areas etc in china as opposed to tw. it would have been much easier establish a government who would maintain control over one ISLAND than it is to do that over the third largest country in the world.

another thing to add is that the KMT took large amounts of wealth with them when they escaped to Taiwan, making it an island with a very concentrated amount of wealth. then the KMT invested the money to develop the island. to this date, the KMT owns many large business operations and is the richest political party in the world.

as for it being a "free" power. this wasn't true until the DPP of Chen Shui Bian took power. and in fact, Taiwan was under martial law until the mid 80s.

communism can only ever take over in underdevelop nations with a peasant/lower/working class majority. but i think you can only think of it as 'good' for those countries if the regime can be abolished at any time with elections- which is in itself impossible because of the nature of communism.

well the scenario that Marx pictured was an industrialised nation with a working class that was oppressed by a minority bourgeois class. in fact, a real Proletarian Revolution as Marx imagined it has never happened. Lenin usurped the army to have his revolution, and China wasn't even industrialised when Mao had his revolution.

but i agree that the idea of elections is inherently impossible because of the nature of communism. i think theoretically, there can be democratic communism. and there's actually a democratic socialist party in the US.

Red_Matrix

08-30-2003, 10:36 PM

well the scenario that Marx pictured was an industrialised nation with a working class that was oppressed by a minority bourgeois class. in fact, a real Proletarian Revolution as Marx imagined it has never happened. Lenin usurped the army to have his revolution, and China wasn't even industrialised when Mao had his revolution.

It's ironic that the two biggest commie countries in world history started off without the ideal conditions Marx depicted in his writings. Russia (though it had somewhat an industrial base in urban areas) and China were peasant farm economies before the revolutions. Lenin took over the country when it became clear that the socialist provisional government had no real power. I still don't believe communism will ever work in our real world (even with a country with a huge poor population). People are too selfish. I don't get this obsession modern intellectuals have with ideas of egalitarianism. A country can only run smoothly when capitalism thrives. Randian objectivism with a touch of humanitarian values--that's the ideal.

SunWuKong

08-30-2003, 11:17 PM

Randian objectivism with a touch of humanitarian values--that's the ideal.

some people would say that "humanitarian values" is really "socialist values".

jenjen

08-31-2003, 02:10 AM

It's ironic that the two biggest commie countries in world history started off without the ideal conditions Marx depicted in his writings.

i think marxism was developed with a completely different notion of the 'ideal state' (and just reiterating with SWK has already said-- true marxism has never been achieved, only the stage before--- socialism) than what we have seen from communist countries, and thus the priliminary conditions stated in the theory of marxism would have been different to the conditions exhibited by countries which could and would realistically adopt marxism.

I still don't believe communism will ever work in our real world (even with a country with a huge poor population). People are too selfish.

yep yep. history has proven that to us time and time again. communism goes against human nature. hence, non-(un?)implementable. full stop.

SunWuKong

08-31-2003, 10:07 AM

Red_Matrix

08-31-2003, 04:55 PM

i think marxism was developed with a completely different notion of the 'ideal state' (and just reiterating with SWK has already said-- true marxism has never been achieved, only the stage before--- socialism) than what we have seen from communist countries, and thus the priliminary conditions stated in the theory of marxism would have been different to the conditions exhibited by countries which could and would realistically adopt marxism.

The goal of Marx's final ideal society (true Marxism) was for the state to wither away because after a period of proletariat socialist dictatorship the class inequalities would be forever done away with. Obviously, this could not become possible considering the human condition (hence, we've only had socialist dictatorships with the banner of sickle and hammer).

i think Marx was short-sighted in that he didn't think that the ruling class would ever implement socialist reforms (things like child-labour laws, minimum wage, healthcare, etc etc). therefore, the proletariat never became as disgruntled as he thought it would, the middle class is still the majority, and the income gap between the haves and the have-nots is not as big as he thought it would be. etc etc. and so no country has yet reached the ideal condition under which a proletarian revolution would occur, which, according to Marx, would be a natural consequence of capitalism without any boundaries.

Marx was totally off base here when he examined the 19th century working class situation. He never would have predicted that in the future there would be countries out there that would implement progressive laws that would protect and benefit the working classes. Hence, the bigger middle class strat in Canada and western Europe. Marx was writing within his own short-sided context (and, unfortunately, look at the damage his writings have caused in the last century).

well i still think that the problem lies in implementation, not the doctrine itself. i think if it was implemented under a democracy or a real republic, people wouldn't have been affected by socialist alienation. hey, the society in Star Trek is communist! :)

Yes, that is why you only see it in Star Trek land (only science FICTION).

the funny thing about how communism had been implemented so far is that instead of getting rid of classism and giving the ownership of production to the people, the communist parties simply replaced the ruling class/bourgeois as the owner of production.

Yes. A classic example being North Korea. :potty:

ModernLogic

09-01-2003, 02:36 AM

This is definitely a controversial topic, and I'll throw some gas on the fire. I have taken a class were the professor presented an argument that communism, despite its murders and oppression, may have helped out China to reach its present day success. He compared the rise of China to the stagnation (maybe too harsh) of India. The points of contention is that with the Cultrual Revolution and etc, China erased the people's link to their heritage, religion and language. Now, that's not saying its necessarily good, but that was what distinguished us from India. India is currently plagued with religious and language barriers that have prevented it from growing into a world power. I have had several Indian friends who have traveled there and lamented about its lack of progress. Perhaps its a slanted American view. The point is that, while communism has created more bodies than needed, it got China there. Its a totally result-driven view.

Uh-huh... Is your Professor a White Woman by the name of Nylan? If she is, I know her. I've read her work before.... she is a liberal with a "romanticized" view of Communism. She fondly thinks of the beautiful blaring red flags or the eager vigor of Red Guards marching in perfect unison instead of the millions who starved to death in the Great Leap Forward... or the HOLOCAUST of Chinese intellectuals in the Cultural Revolution.

If your Professor is Chinese, I bet his family was from the Proletarian class, wasn't he? Yea... he'll try to feed you with the "When the Communist came, we all got jobs and lived happily in our utopian socialist society."

Communism is a failure. It is an absolute disgust to economic and political thought..... Nationalism is what matters. It's Nationalism that gets things done. All the Great Empires of the World have been Nationalists... the Roman Empire, the Chinese empires, the Ottoman Empire, the Third Riech were powerful because they were comprised of Nationalists.

Red_Matrix

09-01-2003, 01:12 PM

Communism is a failure. It is an absolute disgust to economic and political thought..... Nationalism is what matters. It's Nationalism that gets things done. All the Great Empires of the World have been Nationalists... the Roman Empire, the Chinese empires, the Ottoman Empire, the Third Riech were powerful because they were comprised of Nationalists.

Why didn't you mention the Japanese Empire during the early 20th century? Some prejudice in your list, huh? :rolleyes: Just kidding.

ModernLogic

09-02-2003, 12:28 AM

Why didn't you mention the Japanese Empire during the early 20th century? Some prejudice in your list, huh? :rolleyes: Just kidding.

The Japanese didn't have an empire. Just because they managed to kill and rape a lot of people doesn't merit an empire.

YuheiCarreau

09-02-2003, 01:05 AM

The Japanese didn't have an empire. Just because they managed to kill and rape a lot of people doesn't merit an empire.

So... The Third Reich qualifies a legitimate empire by your standards, but the Japanese one lacks authenticity because it was only built on killing and raping? What were the Germans doing, handing out milk and cookies? :rolleyes: I don't think the righteousness of its government really enters into the equation, any time one nation colonizes or militarily dominates the other nations around it, that's an empire.*

*Your suspicions are correct. This comment was obviously a typical Japanese attempt to proclaim our 'dominance' over all Asia. Good for you! You ferreted out my sneaky Japanese plot.

Emperor_Mike

09-02-2003, 01:23 AM

Communism, as envisaged by Marx and Engels, was never a reality. In fact, for true Communism to work humanity would have to learn not to be selfish and greedy. In other words, Communism in its true sense was social utopia and as such unachievable.

Nationalism is the scourge of nation states in this day and age. Countless crimes against humanity have been perpetrated under the guise of "national interests" and Hitler's Lebensraum is a chief example of how much damage misplaced pride can cause. We also need not look further than Slobodan Milosevic's genocidal policies in the Balkans. Nationalism will die and it will take the fires of a conflict so vast in nature that all states will, for once, consider the greater good of humanity instead of their own selfish interests. It will happen sooner or later. Everything's eventual.

Emperor_Mike

09-02-2003, 01:29 AM

The Japanese didn't have an empire. Just because they managed to kill and rape a lot of people doesn't merit an empire.

Empires have to have a measure of stability wrought by peace before it is considered as a true incarnation of its namesake. Or it could be proclaimed in a way much like the French and German Empires were formed. There must be domestic and foreign stability and a sense of international recognition before everything else. As such, I don't categorise the Third Reich or the Japanese conquests during the Second World War as true "empires" in the traditional sense of the word.

However, Japan falls within one of the special cases like Imperial France and Germany. An Emperor still sits upon the Chrysanthemum Throne and for all intents and purposes, modern day Japan is an Empire, albeit a constitutional one with a thoroughly developed democratic system.

ModernLogic

09-02-2003, 05:08 AM

So... The Third Reich qualifies a legitimate empire by your standards, but the Japanese one lacks authenticity because it was only built on killing and raping? What were the Germans doing, handing out milk and cookies? :rolleyes: I don't think the righteousness of its government really enters into the equation, any time one nation colonizes or militarily dominates the other nations around it, that's an empire.*

*Your suspicions are correct. This comment was obviously a typical Japanese attempt to proclaim our 'dominance' over all Asia. Good for you! You ferreted out my sneaky Japanese plot.

My inclusion of the Third Riech was more or less tongue-in-cheek.

Technically, I think an empire is a single political entity that is comprised of several different cultures, ethnicities or nations. The citizens of the empire may all be very different but they are ruled under a centralized political unit. Keep in mind that empires grow not only through military conquest. Some nations can choose whether to join or not.

I also believe that empires have to be a certain size and a certain age to be officially considered an empire. For example, the Han Empire (stretching from Korea to Afghanistan, Vietnam to Siberia) lasted 400 years. The Japanese "empire" (beginning with the annexation of Korea) was only 3 decades.

YuheiCarreau

09-02-2003, 06:25 AM

SunWuKong

09-02-2003, 07:58 AM

In fact, for true Communism to work humanity would have to learn not to be selfish and greedy. In other words, Communism in its true sense was social utopia and as such unachievable.

i don't believe that's necessarily true.

ChinaLama

09-02-2003, 08:43 AM

Emperor_Mike

09-02-2003, 11:58 AM

Well, the two of you are both just inventing characteristics that define an empire. The dictionary definition of the word says nothing about peace, nor does it say anything about being a certain size or age... Also, I can't think of a single empire that wasn't built through military conquest and political intimidation. Why would a sovereign nation willingly submit itself to the will of another, unless some kind of coersion was involved?

Dictionaries rarely take into consideration historical precedents. A book definition made up of a few sentences certainly lacks depth that points true to certain facts that are pertinent to the term. Hard to believe as it may be, there have been two empires (that currently come to mind) that have been formed without the Webster prerequisite of having forcefully subjugated another nation. The Empire of Brazil is one such case, as it was proclaimed by the Braganzas who supplied Brazil with its Emperors. The German Empire yet another. The German Empire was a curious affair in that the German princes did, in fact, willingly place themselves under Prussian rule. It was a federation of sorts with Berlin being the dominant partner, much like how the Soviet Union was arranged. Neither of the empires I stated were accomplished via outright military conquest and political intimidation. One can argue on Alsace-Lorraine in the German case, but unification would've been accomplished without the addition of both Imperial territories to the new Second Reich. In any case, it was but icing on the cake.

Peace and international recognition gives legitimacy to traditional empires and it has been as such for millenia. It implies general acceptance of another nation's imperialist activities and real, lasting empires have always had political and military respite. I suppose if we wish to expand on the definition of "empire" we can perhaps place our candidates into two separate categories: politically sound empires and empires forged in constant warfare without international recognition.

Emperor_Mike

09-02-2003, 12:07 PM

i don't believe that's necessarily true.

Of course it's true in contemporary (i.e. post Marx-Engels) society. The avarice of the ruling class claiming to support the social utopia propounded by Communist ideology has always resulted in a lack of social and economic equilibrium not unlike what you'd find in a "capitalist" nation. Humanity's inherent desire to be better than one's peers (becoming the primus inter pares) and to have more than the next person essentially kills off the possibility of forming a society where everything is more or less equal and goods are shared in a communal manner. The only possible exception I can think of is in tribal societies. Even then it's hard to believe that the top chief/shaman/whatever doesn't harbour any secret desires to own one more cow than his next competitor in the tribe yonder hilltop.

Emperor_Mike

09-02-2003, 12:14 PM

Well, technically, the United STATES is an empire according to XRJ's definition. After all, the definition of a state is a sovereign entity.

also, communism isn't so much built on the premise of selfless humanity as it's built on an economy without scarcity. what marx envisioned early on was a society without division of labor, where man can fulfill his creative capacity by doing whatever he wanted to, where a man can "fish in the morning, herd sheep in the afternoon, and criticize in the evening without being a fisherman, a shepherd or a critical critic" (roughly quoting from The German Ideology). so for such a society to be achieved, i think the important thing is technological abundance. that's why a roughly communist society can be created in Star Trek and not in modern-day economy, although some would argue we're artificially creating scarcity where there doesn't really have to be.

One can argue that an economy without scarcity is an illusion. Though let's just say that there are enough goods to go around. Selflessness rears its ugly head again since in order for everyone to have a fair share of the products in question (since there are enough for all) you'll still have a group of individuals who want more. As a result, someone is going to be deprived of their share.

However, I'm getting at this from contemporary definitions of Communism as practised by the Soviet Union and its client states. Marx's vision of a Communist utopia can never be achieved short of some Star Trek like technological development. If you ask me, Marx wrote a recipe for chaos in Das Kapital. Leave it to the implementers of his society to twist things into a despicable state.

SunWuKong

09-02-2003, 02:45 PM

Of course it's true in contemporary (i.e. post Marx-Engels) society. The avarice of the ruling class claiming to support the social utopia propounded by Communist ideology has always resulted in a lack of social and economic equilibrium not unlike what you'd find in a "capitalist" nation. Humanity's inherent desire to be better than one's peers (becoming the primus inter pares) and to have more than the next person essentially kills off the possibility of forming a society where everything is more or less equal and goods are shared in a communal manner. The only possible exception I can think of is in tribal societies. Even then it's hard to believe that the top chief/shaman/whatever doesn't harbour any secret desires to own one more cow than his next competitor in the tribe yonder hilltop.

but i think it's entirely possible if the notion of private property was taught to children as an immoral concept, the same that stealing is taught to children as an immoral act.

Emperor_Mike

09-02-2003, 05:36 PM

but i think it's entirely possible if the notion of private property was taught to children as an immoral concept, the same that stealing is taught to children as an immoral act.

Many parents also teach their children not to intentionally harm others, yet we still have monsters like Geoffrey Dahmer making their horrific marks on society. When you take into consideration that crime exists in every corner of the Earth it's easy to see that avarice and personal evils are not aberrations that can be bred out of existence. In any case, you can only tutor a child so much. Children are not automatons who will give infallible results on the account that the input you feed it is pure and right. After all, we're only human and as such we are prone to weakness. Greed and desire are unfortunately part of who we are and have been for countless millenia. I'm sure Neanderthal Man and Australopithecus had a few scrapes with members of their own community over who had the bigger portion of dinner. ;)

Anyway, I am of the opinion that the utopian vision of Marx and Engels is nothing more than a dream. Until such a time that we can reliably supply everyone with anything and everything they could ever want, Communism in the truest sense of the ideology is but an illusion that will lead its adherents to nothing but disappointment.

SunWuKong

09-02-2003, 08:11 PM

Many parents also teach their children not to intentionally harm others, yet we still have monsters like Geoffrey Dahmer making their horrific marks on society. When you take into consideration that crime exists in every corner of the Earth it's easy to see that avarice and personal evils are not aberrations that can be bred out of existence. In any case, you can only tutor a child so much. Children are not automatons who will give infallible results on the account that the input you feed it is pure and right. After all, we're only human and as such we are prone to weakness. Greed and desire are unfortunately part of who we are and have been for countless millenia. I'm sure Neanderthal Man and Australopithecus had a few scrapes with members of their own community over who had the bigger portion of dinner. ;)

but an overwhelming majority of the global population is not like Geoffrey Dahmer, and they think that killing is morally incorrect, no?

i mean, under your logic, we might as well not have laws and not try to teach kids morals, respect, civility, etc. if we can teach children that it is immoral to take other people's belongings without their consent, i don't see how it is impossible to teach children that private ownership of land and production means is immoral. in many Native North American tribes, the idea of private land ownership didn't even exist. some didn't have words such as "his", or "mine", etc.

Emperor_Mike

09-02-2003, 09:23 PM

but an overwhelming majority of the global population is not like Geoffrey Dahmer, and they think that killing is morally incorrect, no?

i mean, under your logic, we might as well not have laws and not try to teach kids morals, respect, civility, etc. if we can teach children that it is immoral to take other people's belongings without their consent, i don't see how it is impossible to teach children that private ownership of land and production means is immoral. in many Native North American tribes, the idea of private land ownership didn't even exist. some didn't have words such as "his", or "mine", etc.

Killing is but a single facet of the example. There are other crimes like theft that run rampant throughout society and we can at least presume that the same would hold true if we substitute the word "crime" with "greed." It doesn't take much to corrupt and influence and we are all creatures of emotion. The desire to have more and greater things is a normal one in people of all stripes. From the poorest beggar in the street to the wealthiest and most powerful individuals, the underlying wish to possess is there. It is this undeniable need to have *something* that serves as the driving force towards wanting more. Surely, you cannot teach people not to strive for the most they can achieve. Quite simply put, it's an impossible task.

I think the logic behind my explanation is perfectly sound. Laws are put into place to provide society with a code of conduct and violation of these will bring about punitive actions. As I mentioned before, you cannot expect to teach children and expect them to adhere to your values without fail in their lifetimes. Those who err have to deal with the consequences as stated by a nation's legal code. No one's perfect and it is in the spirit of this that I say that it is this imperfection that makes true Communism impossible since all the participants will have to renounce the ownership of private property. Again, even if you teach children otherwise, some will stray from the idea out of their own freewill and put into practise everything to the contrary. If you have one person with selfish desires the odds of envy materialising are very good and in time the Communist system will break down.

SunWuKong

09-02-2003, 10:39 PM

Killing is but a single facet of the example. There are other crimes like theft that run rampant throughout society and we can at least presume that the same would hold true if we substitute the word "crime" with "greed." It doesn't take much to corrupt and influence and we are all creatures of emotion. The desire to have more and greater things is a normal one in people of all stripes. From the poorest beggar in the street to the wealthiest and most powerful individuals, the underlying wish to possess is there. It is this undeniable need to have *something* that serves as the driving force towards wanting more. Surely, you cannot teach people not to strive for the most they can achieve. Quite simply put, it's an impossible task.

the desire to have more things are there, but the majority of people don't steal. what accounts for the discrepancy? because people are taught that stealing is immoral, and because stealing is illegal. i think the same can be taught of private ownership of land and means of production.

I think the logic behind my explanation is perfectly sound. Laws are put into place to provide society with a code of conduct and violation of these will bring about punitive actions. As I mentioned before, you cannot expect to teach children and expect them to adhere to your values without fail in their lifetimes. Those who err have to deal with the consequences as stated by a nation's legal code. No one's perfect and it is in the spirit of this that I say that it is this imperfection that makes true Communism impossible since all the participants will have to renounce the ownership of private property. Again, even if you teach children otherwise, some will stray from the idea out of their own freewill and put into practise everything to the contrary. If you have one person with selfish desires the odds of envy materialising are very good and in time the Communist system will break down.

again, that's like saying even if you teach all children that killing is immoral, some children will grow up to be killers anyway, and therefore our whole legal code will break down. and also, you are assuming that there's a domino effect in criminal activities. if one person commits fraud, why wouldn't others feel "envy" and cause them all to commit fraud for their personal gains? what accounts for the discrepancy?

Emperor_Mike

09-02-2003, 11:19 PM

the desire to have more things are there, but the majority of people don't steal. what accounts for the discrepancy? because people are taught that stealing is immoral, and because stealing is illegal. i think the same can be taught of private ownership of land and means of production.

I suppose then it would be within the rights of a thoroughly Communist society to pass laws that effectively make private ownership illegal? The reason why the vast majority of us do not resort to common thievery is because in our society there is more than way to obtain what we desire (e.g. through hard work.) With utopian Communism you're looking at the prospect of making sure that no one owns anything at all. Unlike the aspect of exchanges of goods and services, we're dealing with denying individuals a right to possession. There is no alternative to fill the demand for a particular need unlike say, not having enough money to buy a book but having ways to go about obtaining one (theft or finding a job to get the money to make the purchase.)

The underlying issues of pasting an immoral label on private ownership is vastly different from placing a similar one on matters like murder and theft. For one thing, the consequences of private ownership are not as dire as what one would face on a murder charge. Take for example, minor things like littering which would bring about a small fine. People still do it regardless of the fact that if caught they would have to pay. I would imagine that any laws passed on making private ownership illegal would have to include penalties as stringent as those a murderer would face, lest the ordinary man views it as an inconsequential legal bit that he can break at will without great fear. Instituting severe penalities crosses the line into absurdity, I think.

However, let's pretend that these laws are passed and by some amazing stroke of luck (or by an iron fisted rule) society by and large observes the new guidelines. What of the ruling class then? Who is to say that they will be immune to their personal desires? Once the rulers (given the nature and stature of their positions) begin to covet greater things does the Marxist vision of Communist society still remain intact? Or are the people and the government two separate entities that run on a separate set of laws? The last time I checked the governed and the governors are part and parcel of the modern state. As such, if one strays from the flock then the very idea of Communism begins to break down. You need only but one detractor and one case of corruption to set about a breakdown.

again, that's like saying even if you teach all children that killing is immoral, some children will grow up to be killers anyway, and therefore our whole legal code will break down. and also, you are assuming that there's a domino effect in criminal activities. if one person commits fraud, why wouldn't others feel "envy" and cause them all to commit fraud for their personal gains? what accounts for the discrepancy?

Some children do grow up to be killers anyway, as the media and history has shown us in the past and our legal code remains the same. Personal conduct and the social guidelines provided by law do not share the same boat, you know. Laws are guidelines and not words written in stone that *have* to be observed. Everyone has freewill and they can do as they wish, to their detriment if need be. Our legal codes are simply there to let citizens know that there are things that are okay to do and there are things that the government frowns upon.

As for domino effects, it certainly exists in the criminal world. It is a partnership between crime and lackadaisical laws that prompt criminals to commit their trespasses on the belief that loopholes and minimal punitive measures exist in some manner. Using your example of fraud, it's safe to presume that if the legal sector addresses the consequences of committing the aforementioned crime in a half-hearted manner (or fails to do so) we can expect a rise cases of fraud. There is no discrepancy to speak of, I think. It all makes rather perfect sense.

jenjen

09-03-2003, 04:21 AM

i think the same can be taught of private ownership of land and means of production.

i agree that this can be done but with how many generations until the notion is completely instilled into the minds of our children? until it becomes second nature to accept that private ownership of land (to follow on ur example) is immoral? ever read the handmaid's tale?

and plus--- even if this could be done, do we really want to go there? if a perfect marxist state was established then i think many of the things which we as humans live for will be gone--- ie. incentive (often monetary) to achieve will be lost and subsequently the will to achieve, to do just that one bit better than just any joe blow. i mean, isn't that a bit part of how human society has advanced?

SunWuKong

09-03-2003, 06:30 AM

I suppose then it would be within the rights of a thoroughly Communist society to pass laws that effectively make private ownership illegal? The reason why the vast majority of us do not resort to common thievery is because in our society there is more than way to obtain what we desire (e.g. through hard work.) With utopian Communism you're looking at the prospect of making sure that no one owns anything at all. Unlike the aspect of exchanges of goods and services, we're dealing with denying individuals a right to possession. There is no alternative to fill the demand for a particular need unlike say, not having enough money to buy a book but having ways to go about obtaining one (theft or finding a job to get the money to make the purchase.)

no. i said that it would be possible if it is taught that private ownership of land and means of production is immoral. not private ownership of anything at all.

However, let's pretend that these laws are passed and by some amazing stroke of luck (or by an iron fisted rule) society by and large observes the new guidelines. What of the ruling class then? Who is to say that they will be immune to their personal desires? Once the rulers (given the nature and stature of their positions) begin to covet greater things does the Marxist vision of Communist society still remain intact? Or are the people and the government two separate entities that run on a separate set of laws? The last time I checked the governed and the governors are part and parcel of the modern state. As such, if one strays from the flock then the very idea of Communism begins to break down. You need only but one detractor and one case of corruption to set about a breakdown.

that's why i said in the beginning that i think democratic communism is possible. freedom of the press and elections are what will keep corruption at bay.

As for domino effects, it certainly exists in the criminal world. It is a partnership between crime and lackadaisical laws that prompt criminals to commit their trespasses on the belief that loopholes and minimal punitive measures exist in some manner. Using your example of fraud, it's safe to presume that if the legal sector addresses the consequences of committing the aforementioned crime in a half-hearted manner (or fails to do so) we can expect a rise cases of fraud. There is no discrepancy to speak of, I think. It all makes rather perfect sense.

then maybe i haven't been understanding you correctly. i've been assuming that what you're arguing is this: people are going to commit crimes anyway, so the whole system will fail and it won't work in the first place.

SunWuKong

09-03-2003, 06:37 AM

and plus--- even if this could be done, do we really want to go there? if a perfect marxist state was established then i think many of the things which we as humans live for will be gone--- ie. incentive (often monetary) to achieve will be lost and subsequently the will to achieve, to do just that one bit better than just any joe blow. i mean, isn't that a bit part of how human society has advanced?

an advocate of Adam Smith's ideas, are we? :)

on the other hand, communism doesn't mean that everybody gets the same pay. it means that no individuals would own land and means of production. people can still be paid varying amounts according to how effective a work s/he is, much like the way that it is done now. competitive waging does not necessarily reside outside the scope of communism.

owning a means of production will of course get you lots more money. but this is just a difference of morals. in a capitalistic world, owning your own means of production means that you're industrious. in a communistic world, owning your own means of production means that you're exploitative of others.

Emperor_Mike

09-03-2003, 11:43 AM

no. i said that it would be possible if it is taught that private ownership of land and means of production is immoral. not private ownership of anything at all.

Assuming that such an arrangement can be reached, how would mass collectivisation of land and industry be managed in such a way as to avoid the state-run failures of the Soviet Union? It is improbable that an effort to promote a "managed by everyone" policy can be reached and even if such a policy is created, it would prove to be nearly impossible to reach the levels of effiency needed to create enough to supply equal shares to everyone, let alone execute. This brings us to the issue of having a central body to direct state corporations, which in turn also brings up the prospect of those in such positions of responsibility who will be tempted to have a "little more" than the others. This development leads to a disturbance in the socio-economic equilibrium of true Communism and sooner or later we'll find ourselves in another situation similar to that of the Soviet Union or early Communist China. For every idealistic notion propounded by Marx, reality always steps in the way since the inherent problem in such grandiose plans is human nature. It is an uncontrollable power that, as widespread crime has so aptly demonstrated, cannot be fully harnessed even with the best efforts. Short of mind-control, human emotions and psychological makeup will always remain a turbulent force that can be contained (to an extent) but never really pacified.

that's why i said in the beginning that i think democratic communism is possible. freedom of the press and elections are what will keep corruption at bay.

Democratic Communism? A bit of an oxymoron given the world's past experiences, don't you think? ;) Corruption has never been an issue of "free press" or "elections." Corruption comes from within and history has shown that many a time tyrants and the morally reprehensible have been put into office by the people. Ancient Athens, democratic as it was (but certainly not enough by modern standards) still brought several power-hungry and greedy men into positions of governance. Being elected into public office or having an independent voice in the media does not rid a person of corruptive influences or corruption itself. These traits are developed by individuals and positions of authority are not likely to make them go, "Oh! I'm President (Prime Minister, Chancellor, etc.) now so I must do my best to serve the people and not myself!" It would be wonderful if such a thing were to happen, but I don't think that will be forthcoming.

then maybe i haven't been understanding you correctly. i've been assuming that what you're arguing is this: people are going to commit crimes anyway, so the whole system will fail and it won't work in the first place.

No, I would never take such a skewed position. It's like saying, "Well, the doctor didn't cure my cold, so all doctors must be useless." :)

SunWuKong

09-03-2003, 12:11 PM

Assuming that such an arrangement can be reached, how would mass collectivisation of land and industry be managed in such a way as to avoid the state-run failures of the Soviet Union? It is improbable that an effort to promote a "managed by everyone" policy can be reached and even if such a policy is created, it would prove to be nearly impossible to reach the levels of effiency needed to create enough to supply equal shares to everyone, let alone execute. This brings us to the issue of having a central body to direct state corporations, which in turn also brings up the prospect of those in such positions of responsibility who will be tempted to have a "little more" than the others. This development leads to a disturbance in the socio-economic equilibrium of true Communism and sooner or later we'll find ourselves in another situation similar to that of the Soviet Union or early Communist China. For every idealistic notion propounded by Marx, reality always steps in the way since the inherent problem in such grandiose plans is human nature. It is an uncontrollable power that, as widespread crime has so aptly demonstrated, cannot be fully harnessed even with the best efforts. Short of mind-control, human emotions and psychological makeup will always remain a turbulent force that can be contained (to an extent) but never really pacified.

but now you're just questioning the implementation of communism, not the ideological foundation under which it can be built.

similar questions can be asked of capitalistic systems - what's there to keep people from being corrupt and unfairly taking advantage of others? the recent "creative accounting" of Enron is a good example of how the problems you mentioned are not specific to communist systems.

Democratic Communism? A bit of an oxymoron given the world's past experiences, don't you think? ;) Corruption has never been an issue of "free press" or "elections." Corruption comes from within and history has shown that many a time tyrants and the morally reprehensible have been put into office by the people. Ancient Athens, democratic as it was (but certainly not enough by modern standards) still brought several power-hungry and greedy men into positions of governance. Being elected into public office or having an independent voice in the media does not rid a person of corruptive influences or corruption itself. These traits are developed by individuals and positions of authority are not likely to make them go, "Oh! I'm President (Prime Minister, Chancellor, etc.) now so I must do my best to serve the people and not myself!" It would be wonderful if such a thing were to happen, but I don't think that will be forthcoming.

but that's just a pitfall of democracy, not a pitfall of communism. what you mentioned can happen in democratic communism as it happens in reality for democratic capitalism.

also, elections and a free press are not guaranteed methods, but they can hold politicians accountable to a certain degree.

No, I would never take such a skewed position. It's like saying, "Well, the doctor didn't cure my cold, so all doctors must be useless." :)

but that's what i don't understand. the pitfalls of communism that you've mentioned so far, that would ultimately make a communist system fail, i don't see them as problems that are specific only to communism.

Emperor_Mike

09-03-2003, 01:16 PM

but now you're just questioning the implementation of communism, not the ideological foundation under which it can be built.

similar questions can be asked of capitalistic systems - what's there to keep people from being corrupt and unfairly taking advantage of others? the recent "creative accounting" of Enron is a good example of how the problems you mentioned are not specific to communist systems.

I think that ideology and implementation must go hand in hand. After all, the debate is why Communism can be achieved. If we neglect to pay respects to the realities of the situation our discussion is nothing more than conjecture with no basis in the real world. We can resort to that, yes, but in that case this matter will go on forever since we're working with hypothetical issues. Anything idealistic concept you provide I can match with one of equal stature and in the end we won't get anywhere. It's like an exchange between two people telling tall tales. With no grounding in facts each person will continue to want to outdo the other with stories just as fantastic as the last. In that light, now that you've given me the framework of why you think Communism works, it would be my duty to point out why in my opinion the arrangement you gave may not be viable, yes? Ideology is nothing without implementation, I think. We can fantasise but fantasy doesn't lead to results without actual work.

In any case, regarding capitalism, I don't think I've stated in any of my previous posts that I've taken it upon myself to defend that position. In fact, I fully recognise that capitalism has its faults and that these faults will also be excrutiatingly evident in a Communist system due to human nature (which cannot be altered in its entirety no matter how hard you try.) My position remains that absolute, pure Communist societies are dreams that will never come about until humanity ceases to possess the qualities that make us weak and fallible creatures.

but that's just a pitfall of democracy, not a pitfall of communism. what you mentioned can happen in democratic communism as it happens in reality for democratic capitalism.

also, elections and a free press are not guaranteed methods, but they can hold politicians accountable to a certain degree.

It is a pitfall of humanity. Systems of governance come and go with time, but humanity will always remain fallible. It is this weakness that largely defines how a system of rule functions, why it functions, and upon what policies the Machine of State uses to promote national (and personal) interests.

Accountability, like elections and the free press, do not counter corruption, let alone provide a strong mitigating factor. A crook can be booted out of office, but that won't stop the people from installing another one. That's been my point all along, actually. I'm not debating on the merits of having free elections or an independent press in a Communist society. What I'm trying to get at is that the two aforementioned items have very little to no influence on how leaders conduct themselves and the state's business, regardless of whether the government is a Democratic one, a Communist regime, or a traditional Monarchy.

but that's what i don't understand. the pitfalls of communism that you've mentioned so far, that would ultimately make a communist system fail, i don't see them as problems that are specific only to communism.

The problems are not specific only to Communism and I don't recall having pointed out that they were. I'm simply saying that for utopian Communism to exist, it would have to take into serious consideration factors confronted by other methods of governance. Most of the issues draw back to self-interest and the human desire to obtain more than their "fair share" (whatever that means.) It's simply not possible, in my opinion, to create the society envisaged by Marx and Engels. We needn't look far to see that men and women are still more dedicated to themselves than to others. For a social paradise to materialise, this trait has to go and, unfortunately, that leads us back to the question of how we're going to drastically alter human nature.

SunWuKong

09-03-2003, 02:09 PM

In any case, regarding capitalism, I don't think I've stated in any of my previous posts that I've taken it upon myself to defend that position. In fact, I fully recognise that capitalism has its faults and that these faults will also be excrutiatingly evident in a Communist system due to human nature (which cannot be altered in its entirety no matter how hard you try.) My position remains that absolute, pure Communist societies are dreams that will never come about until humanity ceases to possess the qualities that make us weak and fallible creatures.

but the reasoning that you gave was that humans are bound to break the law anyway, because of our human frailty, and that communism is bound to fail because of it. and i argue that this is a problem not specific to communism, and that under your logic, any system would be bound for failure.

Accountability, like elections and the free press, do not counter corruption, let alone provide a strong mitigating factor. A crook can be booted out of office, but that won't stop the people from installing another one. That's been my point all along, actually. I'm not debating on the merits of having free elections or an independent press in a Communist society. What I'm trying to get at is that the two aforementioned items have very little to no influence on how leaders conduct themselves and the state's business, regardless of whether the government is a Democratic one, a Communist regime, or a traditional Monarchy.

now you are assuming that all or most elected officials will become corrupt even in the face of a free press. without a free press or elections, a corrupt official may stay in power for a very long time. with free press and elections, a corrupt official stand a good chance of being booted out, and an uncorrupt official may (or may not) come along to replace him. i'd rather take my chances with the latter.

but this is irrelevant to the discussion of communism. it has more to do with how to deal with corruption. plenty of capitalistic systems do not have free press. hello Singapore and China.

The problems are not specific only to Communism and I don't recall having pointed out that they were. I'm simply saying that for utopian Communism to exist, it would have to take into serious consideration factors confronted by other methods of governance. Most of the issues draw back to self-interest and the human desire to obtain more than their "fair share" (whatever that means.) It's simply not possible, in my opinion, to create the society envisaged by Marx and Engels. We needn't look far to see that men and women are still more dedicated to themselves than to others. For a social paradise to materialise, this trait has to go and, unfortunately, that leads us back to the question of how we're going to drastically alter human nature.

hmm... i don't know about the society that Marx and Engels envisioned, but i still maintain that it's possible to have a society where the people are of the opinion that private ownership of land and means of production is immoral, and therefore illegal. and you're absolutely right that the definition of "fair share" is hazy. what is considered "fair" under a communist-minded society would be different from what is considered "fair" under a capitalist-minded society.

VV o n g B a

09-03-2003, 02:33 PM

some people would say that "humanitarian values" is really "socialist values".
exactly. anything to do with humanitarian values (read as "volunteered" or "free" or "sacrificed") is anathema to rand. the only thing of value in the universe is your life and your $$. neither of which can be given away freely.

Emperor_Mike

09-03-2003, 07:04 PM

but the reasoning that you gave was that humans are bound to break the law anyway, because of our human frailty, and that communism is bound to fail because of it. and i argue that this is a problem not specific to communism, and that under your logic, any system would be bound for failure.

I don't remember pegging Communism out as a system of governance that's destined to end in disaster. History has judged that pretty well and I don't think I need to revisit that matter in depth. People still commit crimes despite the fact that there are penalties involved for doing so. Does this mean that our laws have failed us? Certainly not. The point I've been trying to make this entire time is that utopian Communism is but an illusion and that human moral and ethical frailties are the main causes behind it. Perhaps you've been reading into my commentaries from an angle I'm not aware of, but having gone through my previous posts, I have to admit that I'm a bit baffled how you managed to deduce that I condemned Communism to failure. :confused: If you can let me know where you received that notion from, maybe I can clear it up a bit? My mind works very quickly but unfortunately my typing skills are not fast enough to compensate. ;)

now you are assuming that all or most elected officials will become corrupt even in the face of a free press. without a free press or elections, a corrupt official may stay in power for a very long time. with free press and elections, a corrupt official stand a good chance of being booted out, and an uncorrupt official may (or may not) come along to replace him. i'd rather take my chances with the latter.

but this is irrelevant to the discussion of communism. it has more to do with how to deal with corruption. plenty of capitalistic systems do not have free press. hello Singapore and China.

I don't believe that I am one to make so rash an assumption as to say that all politicians are crooks (though some may disagree.) I was merely saying that the free press and elections cannot eliminate the possibility that corrupt individuals can find themselves in positions of power through deceit or old fashioned demagoguery. It is also not entirely impossible for previously "noble" personnages to turn into monsters when in power in spite of restraining influences like the media, an elected body, etc. Emperor Caligula was one such individual and I'm positive that he has many peers in this regard. In any case, I'm sure you can relate the consequences of a morally bankrupt, self-serving head of government will have on a perfect Communist society. Simply put, it loses its perfection and you'll have a gradual breakdown not unlike the one suffered by the Soviet Union. On a grander scale, it also destroys the illusion of a perfect Communist society where socio-economic equilibrium reigns supreme. A small cause for defeat, but it is a defeat nonetheless.

I must confess that I'm not sure how what we're discussing in this section of the debate is relevant to our earlier talks. The (economic) success stories of China and Singapore have very little to do with their forms of governance and the free press and more to do with economic policy. This, however, is an entirely different subject all together. We can revisit it at a later date if you'd like.

hmm... i don't know about the society that Marx and Engels envisioned, but i still maintain that it's possible to have a society where the people are of the opinion that private ownership of land and means of production is immoral, and therefore illegal. and you're absolutely right that the definition of "fair share" is hazy. what is considered "fair" under a communist-minded society would be different from what is considered "fair" under a capitalist-minded society.

Immoral doesn't necessarily mean illegal unless you have laws that state otherwise. ;) Well, I'm still a defender of the position that human nature will render any attempt at a society without "private ownership of land and means of production" fruitless. I simply cannot envision such a scenario when I take the time to examine the people around me and in the news. Perhaps I'll grant you this: a social experiment of this nature *may* be doable (as I said before) on an extremely small scale; say a village or something along similar lines. Even then I'm positive that human nature (I'm sure you're pretty sick of these two words by now) will find a way to foul things up. Since this is all academic, there really is no way to find out for certain.

SunWuKong

09-03-2003, 09:45 PM

I don't remember pegging Communism out as a system of governance that's destined to end in disaster. History has judged that pretty well and I don't think I need to revisit that matter in depth. People still commit crimes despite the fact that there are penalties involved for doing so. Does this mean that our laws have failed us? Certainly not. The point I've been trying to make this entire time is that utopian Communism is but an illusion and that human moral and ethical frailties are the main causes behind it. Perhaps you've been reading into my commentaries from an angle I'm not aware of, but having gone through my previous posts, I have to admit that I'm a bit baffled how you managed to deduce that I condemned Communism to failure. :confused: If you can let me know where you received that notion from, maybe I can clear it up a bit? My mind works very quickly but unfortunately my typing skills are not fast enough to compensate. ;)

hmm... you did say that communism "in its true sense" is unachievable in this same thread. scroll back up several threads and you'd find it. now, it's been a long time since i've read the Communist Manifesto, so correct me if i'm wrong, but i don't remember Marx discussing much the absolute elimination of greed and other human frailties. i only really remember him stressing the abolition of private property - especially of private ownership of land and means of production.

perhaps our ideas of what communism is are different. in my mind, the kind of communism that is possible to achieve is based on the elimination of private ownership of land and means of production, and of teaching people that those two ideas are immoral. and also, it would have to be backed by a democratic or republic form of government.

I don't believe that I am one to make so rash an assumption as to say that all politicians are crooks (though some may disagree.) I was merely saying that the free press and elections cannot eliminate the possibility that corrupt individuals can find themselves in positions of power through deceit or old fashioned demagoguery. It is also not entirely impossible for previously "noble" personnages to turn into monsters when in power in spite of restraining influences like the media, an elected body, etc. Emperor Caligula was one such individual and I'm positive that he has many peers in this regard. In any case, I'm sure you can relate the consequences of a morally bankrupt, self-serving head of government will have on a perfect Communist society. Simply put, it loses its perfection and you'll have a gradual breakdown not unlike the one suffered by the Soviet Union. On a grander scale, it also destroys the illusion of a perfect Communist society where socio-economic equilibrium reigns supreme. A small cause for defeat, but it is a defeat nonetheless.

well i hardly imagine a communist system to be "perfect". if its leaders are publically elected and there's a free press, their actions would be answerable to the people - to a degree of course. i don't understand why a communist system would gradually breakdown from a few corrupt leaders, if it is based in a democratic government. the same thing would happen to these leaders as if they were under a democratic capitalistic system, they would get ousted. if they're caught, that is. and then hopefully, uncorrupt leaders would replace them. how is this different from how any other democratic system functions, regardless of whether they are communist or capitalist? the reason that corruption ran rampant in the communist systems that had existed or that are existing is because they are not backed by a democratic governments. the people have little say in who actually stay in power, and there's no free press to keep corruption in check.

Immoral doesn't necessarily mean illegal unless you have laws that state otherwise. ;) Well, I'm still a defender of the position that human nature will render any attempt at a society without "private ownership of land and means of production" fruitless. I simply cannot envision such a scenario when I take the time to examine the people around me and in the news. Perhaps I'll grant you this: a social experiment of this nature *may* be doable (as I said before) on an extremely small scale; say a village or something along similar lines. Even then I'm positive that human nature (I'm sure you're pretty sick of these two words by now) will find a way to foul things up. Since this is all academic, there really is no way to find out for certain.

well if people can be taught that stealing is immoral, i don't see how they can't be taught that buying and selling land is immoral. if greed overcomes in the end, people would have no qualms about stealing. but maybe it's because stealing is illegal, and that's why people don't do it? well what if buying and selling land is illegal? the same that tax evasion is illegal, committing fraud is illegal, breaking a legally binding contract is illegal, etc etc etc. if people don't do these things because they're illegal, how is it impossible that people wouldn't buy and sell land if it's illegal?

AliBabaIncorporated

09-03-2003, 11:53 PM

Well, I don't really see why you couldn't create a society where everyone thought private property was immoral and accepted public ownership of all means of production and forms of capital. But the question isn't ability, but reason. To strike an analogy, the US, as the leading superpower in world history, could easily build tombs for our leaders which would dwarf the Egyptian pyramids. The question is why you'd want to bother putting that much effort into building such useless crap in the first place.

Under such a system of democratic communism, how do you decide what needs to get produced in the first place? Right now, the market provides built-in feedback for telling people what needs to get done, through price signals. Gas goes up to $4.00/litre? Hmm, maybe it's time to look into making natural gas or fuel cells workable. Plastic is cheaper than metal? Hmm, maybe kids' lunchboxes don't really need to be made strong enough to smack another kid's head open. Etc.

Who decides all these things under democratic communism? It seems that the ideal would be for the people's vote to determine the use of the means of production, either directly, or through a system of representatives like our very own Congress. Hope you're not one of those with a minority preference. Doubt the people would vote in our scarce television broadcasting bandwidth to be allocated to, say, the 4 Asian-language television stations in the Bay Area. Doubt they'd vote for funding to be allocated to AIDS research when they think it's just a disease for gays, sluts, and druggies, whereas anyone can get cancer or the common cold. There Are More Important Things To Be Done!

(Proportional allocation of the means of production to opposition parties? That just recreates the idea of private property, with voters as competing corporate owners.)

The market mitigates the tyranny of every type of majority, whether health, racial, economic, religious, or whatnot, over smaller groups. Communism and other forms of government interference merely exacerbate it.

Emperor_Mike

09-04-2003, 12:22 AM

hmm... you did say that communism "in its true sense" is unachievable in this same thread. scroll back up several threads and you'd find it. now, it's been a long time since i've read the Communist Manifesto, so correct me if i'm wrong, but i don't remember Marx discussing much the absolute elimination of greed and other human frailties. i only really remember him stressing the abolition of private property - especially of private ownership of land and means of production.

Intelligent as the man may have been, I doubt very much that he would have mentioned anything as ambitious as the abolishment of greed and other human frailties. Perhaps he was enough of a realist to understand that it's a pretty lofty goal indeed to want to change ALL of humanity in so drastic a way.

"Communism in its truest sense" is unachievable, yes. However, I said nothing about delegating the system to the trashbin of history in failure. Unachieveable is vastly different from failure since in order to fail an attempt must be made in the first place. But if we want to nit-pick on that, I suppose after the fall of the Soviet Union, the contemporary interpretation of Communism did, in fact, fail miserably. As far as the utopian vision is concerned, however, I don't think there's a leader out there who has the capacity within himself or herself to undertake such a grandiose plan of action without having to take hallucinogens three times a day. You have to admit, SunWuKong, that Marx's views are a pretty tall order. You can't expect to get rid of things like private property without having to deal with the very foundations of morals and ethics. Which, of course, brings us back to the discussion on human nature and we've already covered that in great (GREAT) detail without being scientific about it.

perhaps our ideas of what communism is are different. in my mind, the kind of communism that is possible to achieve is based on the elimination of private ownership of land and means of production, and of teaching people that those two ideas are immoral. and also, it would have to be backed by a democratic or republic form of government.

Your views, as far as I've ascertained, deal a lot with hypothetical matters that seem awfully tempting on paper (or in thought) but are unimplementable at this juncture. It's an odd hybrid of democratic political values and personal values epoused by Communism. It's not a bad thing, since if the idea can be achieved we'd probably be better people working toward a common goal and sharing common values. However, nice as it may be, we do have to deal with the unfortunate circumstances thrust upon us all and that mainly involves attending to people who have different ways of seeing, doing, and obtaining things. There's nothing wrong with fantasising about a society free from vice, but personally I find Reality to be a more reliable counsel.

well i hardly imagine a communist system to be "perfect". if its leaders are publically elected and there's a free press, their actions would be answerable to the people - to a degree of course. i don't understand why a communist system would gradually breakdown from a few corrupt leaders, if it is based in a democratic government. the same thing would happen to these leaders as if they were under a democratic capitalistic system, they would get ousted. if they're caught, that is. and then hopefully, uncorrupt leaders would replace them. how is this different from how any other democratic system functions, regardless of whether they are communist or capitalist? the reason that corruption ran rampant in the communist systems that had existed or that are existing is because they are not backed by a democratic governments. the people have little say in who actually stay in power, and there's no free press to keep corruption in check.

To desire to eliminate one of humanity's greatest fallacies (greed) is pretty close to wanting perfection, I think. Everything we've spoken on so far ties together and the political aspect is no different. We have the following at this point in time:

1) Communist socio-economic policies as written by Marx is meant to promote equilibrium and the elimination of class distinctions.

2) Equilibrium can only be achieved if people "learn" to abandon greed, envy, and a general desire to be better than one's peers; a development that I argue is impossible given the qualities of human nature.

3) Equilibrium in manufacturing and production, so as to provide a "fair share" to all people, must be managed in some way or else you'll face the reality of nothing running in peak efficiency (i.e. too many cooks spoil the broth.) This requires positions of authority, not unlike the government itself.

4) Positions of authority/responsibility inevitably involve corruption of some sort as the &quo