Is China a successful communist country?

[Deadeye]

Quote by: FriedrichSeneca It's the definition of transitionary socialism from a marxist-leninist perspective, which is all pseudo-commie state ever managed to do in its most brutal form. But it is by no way the definition of communism. Communism is defined by marxists and anarchists alike to be a society free from state and property.

I concur and it is for those reasons that communism can never work. Communism is wrong headed, and so; but to a lessor extent is socialism.

[Yarn]

Communism is built on the discredited enlightenment notion that men are morally perfectable because they are born without vice and only acquire it as result of interaction with the real world. So, the story goes, if you fix the environment you can fix the people and then we can live happily ever after without government of any sort. In its theoretical underpinnings, it ironically resembles libertarianism a lot. Ironically enough, some of the founders fathers of the US, principally Thomas Jefferson (who was, guess, what, a libertarian), were of this delusional belief as well.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Yarn Communism is built on the discredited enlightenment notion that men are morally perfectable because they are born without vice and only acquire it as result of interaction with the real world. So, the story goes, if you fix the environment you can fix the people and then we can live happily ever after without government of any sort. In its theoretical underpinnings, it ironically resembles libertarianism a lot. Ironically enough, some of the founders fathers of the US, principally Thomas Jefferson (who was, guess, what, a libertarian), were of this delusional belief as well.

Thomas Jefferson was a pragmatist and what you've written above is not. Jefferson was also a member of the Enlightenment, which was all about humanism, but not about men achieving perfection. Jeff would have understood that is impossible.

Jeff did believe that free men can create an effective government that does not require a king. He was right, because that's what we are doing now, and it's working pretty well. The only problem that I see in the future is that for Jefferson's government to work we must have an enlightened electoriate. We may have had that at one time, but we don't know, do we?

[mbc85]

I asked you sonart

"So sonart, every single means of economic production is owned privately in chine? (Since they are not communist, just wondering cause I really don't know) "

And you said:

"Who said they had to be? This is what's called a 'False Premise' , mbc, an argument based on a definition that's not actually true. Heck, even in the good 'ol capitalist USA, some means of production are controlled by the government."

Well sonart...... you said it, here:

"It CAN'T be a combination of both. It is either communist or it is capitalist. Either the state owns all the means of economic production or private enterprise owns it."

[GPIRS88]

Yes China is communist just look at the Ferrari Dealership in Shanghai, the Hooters in Beijing or the Starbucks that was in the Forbidden City. I remember buying a pair of Armani Exchange Jeans in the market and thinking if I should go grab dinner at the KFC when I was visiting family in Shenzhen.

Chinese Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty then the entire population of the United States.

Communism is nothing more then a dream paved with the best of intentions. And If I remember the quote well doesnt it go

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."?

[tinybear]

China is definitely not communism. I think that's quite obvious. That said, I don't think China is full-blown capitalistic either because the state remains in control of the market, where the economy goes and at what pace.

[GPIRS88]

China is definitely not communism. I think that's quite obvious. That said, I don't think China is full-blown capitalistic either because the state remains in control of the market, where the economy goes and at what pace.

really? the bag of puppies going for $3 US/each (pets not food lol) and library of bootlegged dvd's tell me otherwise lol

[mbc85]

Oh okay so china has some communist characteristics and a lot of capitalist characteristics. So what is it then? Commulist?

[GuidoNius]

It's a developing country with high income inequality that needs above average central planning to reduce poverty. As it develops it grows areas of relative affluence that do both need and demand larger freedom and less control.

Other than that: I guess commulist isn't bad as a name.

As the developed world is growing inequalities in its own bosom, it will be unavoidable to go more commulist here (or at least to put controls that avoid further growing of a type of unhelpful inequality)

[tinybear]

Quote by: GPIRS88 really? the bag of puppies going for $3 US/each (pets not food lol) and library of bootlegged dvd's tell me otherwise lol

I think state control in China is just a wee bit more 'macro' than that!

[Deadeye]

Quote by: tinybear China is definitely not communism. I think that's quite obvious. That said, I don't think China is full-blown capitalistic either because the state remains in control of the market, where the economy goes and at what pace.

But the people aren't exactly free in China are they.

As we all know communist countries really aren't communist at all, rather they are socialists run by a tyrannical government. If a country was purely communist then the workers wouldn't need to be paid. They'd just go to the store and pick up what they want, and then they'd go happily to work earning or needing nothing. Of course it's pure pie in the sky, but that's the communist idea.

The other part of the communist idea is that before they can get to their utopia they have to murder all of the capitalists. They were pretty good at doing that, but that's the easy part.

[Yarn]

Deadeye:

Jeff would have understood that is impossible.

Not only does Jefferson think highly of man’s ability to reason, but he also believes that the human mind is susceptible to much improvement. Writing to William Green Munford, he states that he is “among those who think well of the human character generally. I consider man as formed for society, and endowed by nature with those dispositions which fit him for society. I believe also, with Condorcet, as mentioned in your letter, that his mind is perfectible to a degree of which we cannot as yet form any conception.”[2] Later on in life, he backs away somewhat from the claim that the mind is “perfectible.” He writes that, “although I do not, with some enthusiasts, believe that the human condition will ever advance to such a state of perfection as that there shall no longer be pain or vice in the world, yet I believe it is susceptible of much improvement, and most of all, in matters of government and religion; and that the diffusion of knowledge among the people is to be the instrument by which it is to be effected.”[3]... Jefferson’s optimistic appraisal of mankind’s capacity for self-government is largely shaped by his views on the moral sense. Jefferson believed that since man is a social animal, God had given humans an innate sense of right and wrong. Man will ultimately, when left to his own devices, choose the right path unless led astray by some bias or religious principle.[7]

- Jefferson and Rousseau – On Democracy « Almost Chosen People

I may have exaggerated, via an overly vague memory, but not by much.

In fact, our modern idea of the theory is mostly attributed to John Locke's expression of the idea in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding in the 17th century. In Locke's philosophy, tabula rasa was the theory that the (human) mind is at birth a "blank slate" without rules for processing data, and that data is added and rules for processing are formed solely by one's sensory experiences. The notion is central to Lockean empiricism. As understood by Locke, tabula rasa meant that the mind of the individual was born "blank", and it also emphasized the individual's freedom to author his or her own soul. Each individual was free to define the content of his or her character - but his or her basic identity as a member of the human species cannot be so altered. It is from this presumption of a free, self-authored mind combined with an immutable human nature that the Lockean doctrine of "natural" rights derives.

- Tabula rasa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Locke in turn was amongst Jefferson's trinity of heroes: Newton, Loke, and Bacon.

Jeff did believe that free men can create an effective government that does not require a king. He was right, because that's what we are doing now, and it's working pretty well. The only problem that I see in the future is that for Jefferson's government to work we must have an enlightened electoriate. We may have had that at one time, but we don't know, do we?

Here is what Jefferson had to say about corporations:

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Thomas Jefferson, 1812

- Thomas Jefferson

Do you really think he would be laizze faire in our modern setting? Do you really think he would remain of the opinion that government should be minimalist because people will handle themselves justly in a free society when there aren't many rules?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: mbc85 I asked you sonart "So sonart, every single means of economic production is owned privately in chine? (Since they are not communist, just wondering cause I really don't know) " And you said: "Who said they had to be? This is what's called a 'False Premise' , mbc, an argument based on a definition that's not actually true. Heck, even in the good 'ol capitalist USA, some means of production are controlled by the government." Well sonart...... you said it, here: "It CAN'T be a combination of both. It is either communist or it is capitalist. Either the state owns all the means of economic production or private enterprise owns it."

Yep, that's a pretty good summary. Thanks.

And yeah, it's still correct.

A - Communism -- State owns all means of economic production. Not capitalist.

B - Somewhat socialist - meaning Most Democracies -- Government may/or may not own some of the means of economic production, but does regulate both government and privately own production. More or less capitalist, like China.

C - Pure Capitalism -- all means of production is privately owned private property, free from regulation by the government. Capitalist.

Communism is what it is. Thirty-seven Chinese companies made the list in the 2009 Fortune Global 500. That's not communism. Are you still confused?

Quote by: mbc85 Oh okay so china has some communist characteristics and a lot of capitalist characteristics. So what is it then? Commulist?

First off... does it matter? They're what I said; a very authoritarian state with a heavily regulated capitalist economy. It's China, People's Republic of.

Is there something about pigeonholing everyone in convenient labels that makes your warm and fuzzy inside?


.

[mbc85]

"A - Communism -- State owns all means of economic production. Not capitalist.
B - Somewhat socialist - meaning Most Democracies -- Government may/or may not own some of the means of economic production, but does regulate both government and privately own production. More or less capitalist, like China.
C - Pure Capitalism -- all means of production is privately owned private property, free from regulation by the government. Capitalist.
Communism is what it is. Thirty-seven Chinese companies made the list in the 2009 Fortune Global 500. That's not communism. Are you still confused?"

Very, but not so much with china, rather with your posts. But I can see you don't like admitting that you posted wrong continuously and could have led people to believing erroneous things. Ie: "frogs and apples". Anyways ill stop with you since you make no sense to me.

Guidonius: "It's a developing country with high income inequality that needs above average central planning to reduce poverty. As it develops it grows areas of relative affluence that do both need and demand larger freedom and less control."

Oh okay. So their economic system some what is the same as mexico's but they haven't gotten to the "more freedom" part? Somethings own and somethings not own by the state but regulated often by the state.

[Deadeye]

While Jefferson may have erred when he thought, at least early in his life, that man can achieve perfection, there is some logic to this concept. For instance mankind, given time does do a pretty good job of fixing things. He does, sometimes; respond effectively to a challenge and through contemplation, trial and error he does often do the right thing. It is imperative, as Jeff wrote, that man first be free in order to make whatever adjustments that he sees as appropriate.

Over time our ability to solve problems, when graphed shows an upward trend heading toward perfection. We are better off, for instance that were the Cro Magnum. Why? Because we figured out better ways of doing things and built upon knowledge gained.

Can we reach perfection? First, what's that? and secondly when do we know we're there?

[Sonart]

.


Sorry mbc85, but I can't make it any clearer than I have. Communist countries do not engage in free-market capitalism. If they did, they wouldn't be Communist... by definition. It's that simple.

I have a dog like you... selective hearing... he hears what he wants, when he wants, everything else he pretends he didn't hear.

Quote by: mbc85 Oh okay. So their economic system some what is the same as mexico's but they haven't gotten to the "more freedom" part?

Yeah, so? Is Mexico a communist country? Freedom has nothing to do with communism. I've already explained that it's perfectly possible to have a free, democratic state - House of Representatives, Senate, all freely elected - with a communist economy, owned entirely by the government.

Although Deadeye correctly pointed out that such a government would be very unlikely because very, very few people with a vote in such a democracy, except maybe the very poor, would WANT to live in a communist economy.

.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Sonart . Sorry mbc85, but I can't make it any clearer than I have. Communist countries do not engage in free-market capitalism. If they did, they wouldn't be Communist... by definition. It's that simple. I have a dog like you... selective hearing... he hears what he wants, when he wants, everything else he pretends he didn't hear. Yeah, so? Is Mexico a communist country? Freedom has nothing to do with communism. I've already explained that it's perfectly possible to have a free, democratic state - House of Representatives, Senate, all freely elected - with a communist economy, owned entirely by the government. Although Deadeye correctly pointed out that such a government would be very unlikely because very, very few people with a vote in such a democracy, except maybe the very poor, would WANT to live in a communist economy. .

Workers who live in communists countries are the poorest on the Globe. Workers who live in capitalists countries are the wealthiest workers on the Globe. The only wealthy in a communist country are the crooks who run the government. Do I need to list them?

If one was to put a population of poor people in a capitalist country and then after a few decades threaten to replace capitalism with communism it would require a revolution and after the blood stopped flowing the poor workers would be poorer, less fullfilled and more desperate. History teaches us this very real fact.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Sonart . Sorry mbc85, but I can't make it any clearer than I have. Communist countries do not engage in free-market capitalism. If they did, they wouldn't be Communist... by definition. It's that simple. I have a dog like you... selective hearing... he hears what he wants, when he wants, everything else he pretends he didn't hear. Yeah, so? Is Mexico a communist country? Freedom has nothing to do with communism. I've already explained that it's perfectly possible to have a free, democratic state - House of Representatives, Senate, all freely elected - with a communist economy, owned entirely by the government. Although Deadeye correctly pointed out that such a government would be very unlikely because very, very few people with a vote in such a democracy, except maybe the very poor, would WANT to live in a communist economy. .

The problem with Mexico is that it's run by a class of thugs. There is little upward mobility, because the big wigs have their hands out and slim so much of the profits that there isn't enough to gather capital goods. As far as I can tell, the only time Mexicans are successful is when they are selling things to Americans, who have money to spend (or at least we used to).

[tinybear]

Well, I always buy oranges from the Mexican guy who stands beside those traffic lights near my home. It saves me the trouble to going to Ralphs and having to park the car and going through the checkout lines. Besides, those oranges are much sweeter than the ones at Ralphs.

You guys oughta try them sometime.

[GPIRS88]

Here is what Jefferson had to say about corporations: Quote: "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Thomas Jefferson, 1812 - Thomas Jefferson Do you really think he would be laizze faire in our modern setting? Do you really think he would remain of the opinion that government should be minimalist because people will handle themselves justly in a free society when there aren't many rules?

Yes, in fact he would say government is playing too much of a role in American politics today.

The federal branch is suppose to play a limited role. It is a shame that congress is allowing lobbyist to take tax payer's money and use it towards their own government sponsored contracts. In a truly free market society this type of activity should not be acceptable especially since gov't debt is in the red.

we need to differ capitalism vs corporatism. How is possible that US military spending is the highest in the world yet there was problems supplying troops with armor in iraq?