Socialism with Chinese Characteristics

According to Technological Determinism & Socialism with Chinese Characteristics:

"new economic development strategy based upon decentralization of control over the state owned enterprise sector, expanded market transactions to replace command and control allocation, dismantling of the rural commune system (completed in 1985), increased use of material incentives in workplaces, and ultimately, upon the modernization of the Chinese economic infrastructure (as well as the military infrastructure). This last aspect of their strategy represents more than a mere objective. Modernization represents the mission of the pragmatists. Deng Xiaoping rejected the Maoist tendency to forswear the technological trappings of the so-called West (including soft technology in the form of social relationships) and embraced the idea that modernity required copying many of the traits of the Western capitalist nations."

Wang Yu on behalf of the Communist Party of China in January 2004 said:

"production stagnated for a long time. There was little improvement in people’s quality of life, and China’s gap with developed economies widened further. All of this made Chinese Communists ask themselves time and again the following questions: Where on earth was the superiority of socialism? Was socialism rich or poor? What is revolution and what was its purpose? The theory of building socialism with Chinese characteristics, which took the development of the productive forces as its fundamental task, came into being amid and as a result of these reflections and reviews."

The Chinese are the best socialists I've ever seen. I can only hope that one day America will be the sort of socialists that China is now!

B-Ran wrote:According to Technological Determinism & Socialism with Chinese Characteristics:

"new economic development strategy based upon decentralization of control over the state owned enterprise sector, expanded market transactions to replace command and control allocation, dismantling of the rural commune system (completed in 1985), increased use of material incentives in workplaces, and ultimately, upon the modernization of the Chinese economic infrastructure (as well as the military infrastructure). This last aspect of their strategy represents more than a mere objective. Modernization represents the mission of the pragmatists. Deng Xiaoping rejected the Maoist tendency to forswear the technological trappings of the so-called West (including soft technology in the form of social relationships) and embraced the idea that modernity required copying many of the traits of the Western capitalist nations."

Wang Yu on behalf of the Communist Party of China in January 2004 said:

"production stagnated for a long time. There was little improvement in people’s quality of life, and China’s gap with developed economies widened further. All of this made Chinese Communists ask themselves time and again the following questions: Where on earth was the superiority of socialism? Was socialism rich or poor? What is revolution and what was its purpose? The theory of building socialism with Chinese characteristics, which took the development of the productive forces as its fundamental task, came into being amid and as a result of these reflections and reviews."

The Chinese are the best socialists I've ever seen. I can only hope that one day America will be the sort of socialists that China is now!

Why?

Because the Chinese, realizing that socialism doesn't work, decided to abandon socialism.

B-Ran wrote:Because the Chinese, realizing that socialism doesn't work, decided to abandon socialism.

Kinda. I see what you are saying.

I wonder if you would really want that if you considered the evolution of China's economy. Just a few decades ago, America's poor had a higher standard of living than the average Chinese person. Our poor were working for minimum wage while enterprises in China employed slave labor. We could voice our complaints openly while those complaining in China were dealt with rather permanently.

China was able to give its people better accommodations because of its starting point than America will be able to give its people because of its starting point. There is a flaw in logic that those who had nothing have something, so, therefore, they are better off than those who had something but have nothing new. In other words, if getting a TV with rabbit ears is something new to them, it does not mean that our people would or should get excited about gaining a TV with rabbit ears. In relative terms, their people are gaining more than we are, but in real terms they are merely catching up.

Economies are evolutionary, as are all things in the universe. To me, evolution is best thought of as "offspring have characteristics of both parents, but are identical to neither." The economy must evolve because resources become exhausted, technologies improve, and standards of living changes. I hear people talk of America going back to more simpler times, but, upon examination, they really don't want to use outhouses, fear Indians, or enslave black people.

Presuming the offspring economy for pure socialism is the addition of some capitalist principles, and the offspring of pure capitalism is the addition of some socialist principles, with the consequence of not adding these "unfavorable" principles being that masses of dissidence will grow, I am happy to live in America and adapt than to live in China with its history of human rights violations and totalitarian governance.

I will admit that I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek when I said that I can only hope that America becomes like China. Although I fear that with things going the way that they are, we might be going more toward the direction that China took than we should hope.

Like I told someone today, "If Barack Obama is president, then we will only be as socialist as he thinks we should be." That's a scary proposition.

As tongue-in-cheek, then, the statement takes on a new realm for consideration. I see that it could go one of two ways:

First, we could become more like China by becoming more socialistic. It craws at my free market principles, but it seems we are doomed to the reality of either providing some basic needs for those too lazy or inept to do it for themselves, or by providing for those same people's needs by imprisoning them as they resort to crime for provisions and providing their basic needs anyway. Presuming the latter is not the best option of the two, would the economy benefit from such radical programs such as paying the poor to become sterile, or providing some sort of communal living that accommodates for alcoholism and drug abuse for those who would choose that over homelessness or communal living subject to rehab? I know that is not China-like, but we are not at the same starting point as China was. We must begin from where we are at.

The second way we could become more like China is to do away with democracy. Though it sounds radical, the flaw in democracy is that the masses of people tend to vote for whatever benefits them personally. If those who make the rules were not subject to popularity contests, would the consequence be responsible legislation knowing irresponsible legislation might result in revolution? I'm not saying Deng Xiaoping brought reform to China out of fear, but he was faced with growing dissidence by a population so massive that there might not be enough bullets to kill them all. He was not, however, popularly elected, but came from within the system. Perhaps there was wisdom in only allowing land owners the right to vote. However, limiting democracy to only land owners means that elected officials must be popular among that group. Maybe there is wisdom in allowing leaders to choose amongst themselves who will join the group as attrition creates openings within the group.

It is said that Socrates thought governments should be run by philosophers, and not by politicians.

How far would you be willing to go to "create the most perfect union?"

Tom, that is the best question. I hate to assert that I have the answer to that question, but I think I do. Somehow, it needs to be impressed on the American people that the right response to freedom is not "whatever I want," but rather "whatever is best." Licentiousness is the flip-side of freedom just as slavery is the flip side of security. Somewhere along the line, we lost our founding obsession with a more perfect union. Make no mistake: the founders of our country were obsessed with making our country the greatest nation the world has ever seen in every respect. That we have lost that collective obsession is to the great detriment of our nation and her people.

When I say "greatest in every respect" I suppose I should qualify that with a sort of directive: "Imagine the greatest thing you could do with your life. Now go do it." Not "go expect it to be done for you." Not "imagine something super fun and go do it." No. Every person in America should be asked to approach whatever they do with a desire to see such done excellently.

Here is what TJ thought:

"I think all the world would gain by setting commerce at perfect liberty."
Thomas Jefferson, July 7, 1785

Sorry for all of the TJ quotes on the forum. He was just so brilliant, I have a hard time not throwing them on here. I am not appealing to his "authority", but just appreciate his mind.

dont apologize, keep em coming.

The Brain Train wrote:dont apologize, keep em coming.

I am starting a thread specifically to list TJ quotes and to discuss them.