Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There has never been a modern industrialized state that has embraced communism So what do you think reading the history books going to tell us about that?
Communism opposes classes. The poster you're responding to is correct.
There will me no middle class, liberal or conservative, if communism comes to power.
Read your HISTORY books!!!
Agree. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either foolishly naive or has never stepped foot in a communist country long enough to see the daily life with their own eyes.
China under Chairman Mao wouldn't even allow a regular citizen selling his leftover watermelons harvest from his own garden to help put extra money for his family because selling stuff for personal gain was considered capitalism (this story was told to me by the communist family I stayed with in China). The communist party run government controls everything, most notably the country's wealth, while general masses have to make do with inferior handouts from the government (including uniformed clothing, food, utilities that's only on for certain time, etc..). Things only get better in China after Deng Xiao Ping introduced the 'New China' policy which basically embraced capitalism in their economic policy.
GraceC, I respect your opnions, because you have actually been there and seen for yoursself what you are talking about---unlike most of the posters on this board.
I wish you had also been in China before the Mao revolution, so you could have seen what China was like when all the wealth was controlled by a small number of wealthy aristocrats. They grabbed everything for themselves, the only difference was that there were no "inferior handouts". Millions just died, and nobody cared.
Nobody here has argued that China is better then America, nobody has argued that American would become a better place if we became communits. The argument is that the Czars of Russia and the landlords of China, ruling perfectly capitalixt empires, thought of their citizens as lifestock. People who died of starvation and disease were easily replaced and would continue to labor to serve the courtly needs of the well-born.
Communism would not be udeful in America, because America already has enough wealth to go around and people are not starving. Communism is decreasingly useful for China, because they have already gotten over the hump and pulled up the level of their productivity and put in place an infrastructure that would assure the poor that they could live untill tomorrow, and even with some dignity.
The China I saw was the rural south between Hong Kong and Nanning, which is one of the poorest parts of China, completely unindustrialized. I traveled alone, piecing my way through on local busses from town to town, which took three weeks. I saw no poverty, no beggars, no destitute or hungry people, no homeless. Bustling markets had plenty of food for everyone. Nobody wearing uniforms, no policemen on every corner, no cadres of patriotic youth marching in step. Just rural third-world people living their lives in what looked to me like dignity.
Compared to capitalist India, it looked to me like the Chinese in the rural backwaters were better off and have much more promising future. I can only speculate that the reason for this is because the Maoist revolution, difficult as it was at the time, laid a groundwork for the well-being of a future China in which all people would have a share of the product of their work. This future is becoming visible in the underbelly of China, more so than in India. This is why I think communism was not a bad step in the development of a modern China.
GraceC, I respect your opnions, because you have actually been there and seen for yoursself what you are talking about---unlike most of the posters on this board.
I wish you had also been in China before the Mao revolution, so you could have seen what China was like when all the wealth was controlled by a small number of wealthy aristocrats. They grabbed everything for themselves, the only difference was that there were no "inferior handouts". Millions just died, and nobody cared.
Nobody here has argued that China is better then America, nobody has argued that American would become a better place if we became communits. The argument is that the Czars of Russia and the landlords of China, ruling perfectly capitalixt empires, thought of their citizens as lifestock. People who died of starvation and disease were easily replaced and would continue to labor to serve the courtly needs of the well-born.
Communism would not be udeful in America, because America already has enough wealth to go around and people are not starving. Communism is decreasingly useful for China, because they have already gotten over the hump and pulled up the level of their productivity and put in place an infrastructure that would assure the poor that they could live untill tomorrow, and even with some dignity.
The China I saw was the rural south between Hong Kong and Nanning, which is one of the poorest parts of China, completely unindustrialized. I traveled alone, piecing my way through on local busses from town to town, which took three weeks. I saw no poverty, no beggars, no destitute or hungry people, no homeless. Bustling markets had plenty of food for everyone. Nobody wearing uniforms, no policemen on every corner, no cadres of patriotic youth marching in step. Just rural third-world people living their lives in what looked to me like dignity.
Compared to capitalist India, it looked to me like the Chinese in the rural backwaters were better off and have much more promising future. I can only speculate that the reason for this is because the Maoist revolution, difficult as it was at the time, laid a groundwork for the well-being of a future China in which all people would have a share of the product of their work. This future is becoming visible in the underbelly of China, more so than in India. This is why I think communism was not a bad step in the development of a modern China.
China before Mao was the same as other countries under feudal system (France before revolution, Russia under the Tsar) and in many cases, similar to countries under colonialism. China and Russia embraced communism to change their countries' fate, others embraced democracy and republic style of government.
I'm not sure China today owed it to Mao. His cultural revolution was a failed policy with a hefty pricetag in the forms of human lives & suffering. It was a shameful & painful history to many people in China until just recently, when the nationalist movement spinned the whole thing into a better picture, then all of a sudden Mao's pictures became something fashionably hip.
As to China's economic awakening, I firmly believed it had nothing to do with Mao but something to do with Deng Xiao Ping's visit to Singapore in the 80's. I read a biography of Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's former premiere and founding father, where he revealed a very candid conversation he had with Deng about China's policy. They discussed Singapore's brand of capitalism, and how it, too, can be practiced in China without abandoning Communism altogether. Later after Deng's return from Singapore, he launched his 'New China' policy. Then in the 90's China opened up it's first Special Economic Region (Sen Tzen) as a trial of capitalism meets communism, followed by Tzu Hai, and by the time Hongkong was handed back to China, they were more than ready to manage that island without much interference from the mainland.
You're right about the stark contrast between India's poor and China's. I've travelled to many cities in India too, and have probably travelled through the same villages you did in China (Nanning, as well as most cities in GuangXi and Yunnan province, and most parts of southern China, then ended my journey in Guang Zhou), also by bus. Although I think the stark difference in poverty level between India and China is owed to each country's different attitude in helping their fellow citizens. India's hindu belief has the horrible caste system that they still hold on to, to this day. China, on the other hand, believes that they're all brothers and sisters if you will, so helping each other is something they do without thought. Look how fast they handled their recent earthquake disaster compare to Katrina for example. China is also a relatively non religious and homogenous society, with the same written language wherever you go. So it's easier to help each other when you look and speak and think the same.
India not only has to deal with caste system, but also different religions (they have many hindu denominations), cultures, languages, and skin colors. If you're born in the lowest caste, then you might as well not been born, since the chance of you getting help or helping yourself is slim to none. That's the main difference.
I just joined and reading this I must say are some of you mentally disabled. Good god what many of you say its sad.
Nevermind I read some later pages. These later pages are much more factual and far less
"rawr capitalism sucks" and "rawr socialism sucks"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
