Although I concede that the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square
massacre is a few days past, I figured that the issue was as relevant
as ever. Below is a link to a relatively concise yet imformative
timeline of the events relating to Tiananmen Square.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/cron/
_________________________________________________________________
The link was merely one of many sources of "food for thought" in the
discussion of the future of basic human rights (freedom of speech,
freedom of assembly, etc.) in China. What do you think the future of
China holds relating to human rights: do you think there will be a
gradual movement toward democracy or further communism over the
next few decades and why?
Originally posted by wittywonkaMaybe, instead of the false dichotomy between "democratic" capitalism (which only pays lip service to democracy) and authoritarian "communism" (which only pays lip service to communism), the Chinese will get it right and introduce Democratic Communism*.
Although I concede that the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square
massacre is a few days past, I figured that the issue was as relevant
as ever. Below is a link to a relatively concise yet imformative
timeline of the events relating to Tiananmen Square.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/cron/
___________________________________________ ...[text shortened]... a
gradual movement toward democracy or further communism over the
next few decades and why?
But I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
*Cracks about "Democratic Communism" only paying lip service to both democracy and communism have been anticipated in advance. You're not as clever as you think.
Originally posted by rwingettI anticipate we will have a sermon competition round entitled "Jesus and Money." You'll have to talk about both. I'm looking forward to your entry in round 1.
Maybe, instead of the false dichotomy between "democratic" capitalism (which only pays lip service to democracy) and authoritarian "communism" (which only pays lip service to communism), the Chinese will get it right and introduce Democratic Communism*.
But I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
*Cracks about "Democratic Communism" only payi ...[text shortened]... cracy and communism have been anticipated in advance. You're not as clever as you think.
Originally posted by wittywonkaTiananmen Square was not a massacre, just a kittle collateral damage. Hope they go back to moe communism cause they're kicking our butts at capitalism.
Although I concede that the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square
massacre is a few days past, I figured that the issue was as relevant
as ever. Below is a link to a relatively concise yet imformative
timeline of the events relating to Tiananmen Square.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/cron/
___________________________________________ ...[text shortened]... a
gradual movement toward democracy or further communism over the
next few decades and why?
Originally posted by kirksey957"Jesus and Money?" Is that for round 2? I'm about halfway done with my sermon for round 1. It's going to be a little long, though. Tell the judges to have mercy on me. You know, like Jesus would have done.
I anticipate we will have a sermon competition round entitled "Jesus and Money." You'll have to talk about both. I'm looking forward to your entry in round 1.
Originally posted by smw6869That's because they're doing it the old-fashioned way:
Tiananmen Square was not a massacre, just a kittle collateral damage. Hope they go back to moe communism cause they're kicking our butts at capitalism.
http://new.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=9494
Emancipation and the end of child labour spelt the death knell of old school capitalism. Next it was unions and the great slide downhill...Thank God for Chinese backbone.
Originally posted by rwingettSo many democracies in the world with supposed Communist parties...and yet how many actually get voted into power?
Maybe, instead of the false dichotomy between "democratic" capitalism (which only pays lip service to democracy) and authoritarian "communism" (which only pays lip service to communism), the Chinese will get it right and introduce Democratic Communism*.
But I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
*Cracks about "Democratic Communism" only payi ...[text shortened]... cracy and communism have been anticipated in advance. You're not as clever as you think.
Democracy is one thing, the economic system voted by the citizens of that democracy is another. Terms like "democratic capitalism" or "democratic communism" must necessarily be paying lip service to democracy.
Originally posted by PalynkaAll I know is a Chinese friend put it like this. Their leader is a CEO of a large company that also just happens to be a country. The best part about it is that the usual inefficiency that goes with democracies where endless debates can produce a paralysis of the analysis and a lot of money is spent by the taxpayer to fund the lifestyles of politicians who never get anything done, is largely absent in the Chinese 'Company'. If a problem has to be dealt with or fixed(providing a utility or solving a growth strategy dilemma) then the speed at which change occurs is largely seen positively by Chinese people.
So many democracies in the world with supposed Communist parties...and yet how many actually get voted into power?
Democracy is one thing, the economic system voted by the citizens of that democracy is another. Terms like "democratic capitalism" or "democratic communism" must necessarily be paying lip service to democracy.
The usual inability to do the job required for fear of a political backlash, that so often plagues the west and can hamstring good programs from being introduced by government is almost never encountered in China. And as my friend asserts, that even if its not exactly the best solution, at least something is always being done and done quickly, and that sense of direct dynamic action is something that a lot of Chinese wouldnt like to lose if they were to adopt a more democratic consensus style government.
Originally posted by PalynkaVoting communist parties into power is a waste of time. The very idea of a communist party is a waste of time. A socialist, democratic, and egalitarian society will never be brought about through the efforts a political party.
So many democracies in the world with supposed Communist parties...and yet how many actually get voted into power?
Democracy is one thing, the economic system voted by the citizens of that democracy is another. Terms like "democratic capitalism" or "democratic communism" must necessarily be paying lip service to democracy.
A capitalist society can never have anything but a superficial democracy as the people don't get to vote on the economic system they will have. No matter who they vote into power, they are left with a system that thrives on exploitation and inequality, both of which make a meaningful democracy impossible.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettAnd there lies the fundamental problem of almost all 'democracies' in the world today. In a good democracy the people vote a person into 'office' not into 'power' and then the persons job in office is to do what the people want and not what he wants to do with his new found power.
No matter who they vote into power....
I have always noticed a strong tendency in Zambia where I come from for politicians to focus everything on the election and getting into 'power' and then doing whatever they feel like after that. The result is that the peoples input comes down to 1 vote per person every five years which is a vote for useless corrupt politician number one or useless corrupt politician number two with no say whatsoever what their policies etc should be. All the politicians have a nice shining manifesto but do not even attempt to implement them after the elections.
My hope is that as communications improve we can find effective reasonable secure ways to have votes on smaller issues. For example as soon as more than 60% or so of the population has cell phones we could have votes via SMS. It would be fairly easy to keep a lid on extensive vote rigging and even then there are many decisions that people could participate in that nobody would feel it worth the effort to try and rig but it would just be a way of letting politicians know what the people want.
Originally posted by kmax87I guess each one has his political ideologies and his priorities. Personally I feel that economic efficiency comes second (third?) to democracy which comes second to the defense of Human Rights.
All I know is a Chinese friend put it like this. Their leader is a CEO of a large company that also just happens to be a country. The best part about it is that the usual inefficiency that goes with democracies where endless debates can produce a paralysis of the analysis and a lot of money is spent by the taxpayer to fund the lifestyles of politicians who ne ...[text shortened]... inese wouldnt like to lose if they were to adopt a more democratic consensus style government.
5 edits
Originally posted by rwingett[/b]Agreed, hence the oxymoron democratic communism.
Voting communist parties into power is a waste of time. The very idea of a communist party is a waste of time. A socialist, democratic, and egalitariather interesting thing is that under capitalism, such Communist communities already exist. But they don't thrive and grow to any significant magnitude. Don't you wonder why?
[b]No matter who they vote into thrives on exploitation and inequality, both of which make a meaningful democracy impossible.
A capitalist society can never have anything but a superficial democracy as the people don't get to vote on the economic system they will have.
Why not? Didn't Venezuelans vote Chavez? Didn't the Swedish vote for their particular mix between capitalism and social intervention? As much as the typical Communist argues, real choices exist and the majority of voters simply don't want the society you do. Tough luck for you.
Another interesting thing is that under the current "capitalism", such Communist communities already exist. But they don't thrive and grow to any significant magnitude. Don't you wonder why?
No matter who they vote into power, they are left with a system that thrives on exploitation and inequality, both of which make a meaningful democracy impossible.
More unsupported statements and meaningless gibberish.
Edit: I'm not saying that current democracies are perfect, but it's a giant leap in logic to deduce that there is no real democratic choice.