Call for Beijing to work with Taiwan to reunify in Chinese-style democracy

[Kolaps]

Confucianism what a joke its confusionism if I can say like this.It's an invention of Kuomingtang firstly and then was introduced into mainland China 30 years ago.

Confusionism is actually happened now.

 

[Kolaps]

Wrong. There was: The Emperor.

This is where you failed to understand. There is a difference between a 'head of state' and 'head of government'. In the modern era, in countries that still have a constitutional monarchy like Great Britain, the monarchy is the 'head of state' while the Prime Minister is the 'head of government'. In France, the President is the 'head of state' and the PM is the 'head of government'. In the US, the President is both and that is unique.

Anyway...Under the 'imperial' system, the Emperor is the political party. His beliefs for the country, however he claimed to be derived from, Heaven or dynastic, sets the tone for the people. Call it the 'Party of Heaven' or the 'Party of the Golden Dragon' for all we care. There was no term for it but the reality is that it is exactly what we call it today: a political party. The Emperor then relies on assorted ministers to execute his will and ensure the orderly function of governance. The Emperor tolerates no alternatives to his beliefs. He cannot tolerate any alternatives else the people would begins to doubt the legitimacy of his rule.

The reason you WILL NOT concede to this is because probably you never took political science seriously and you are desperate to remove China from any Western influence, even to the point of denying the neutral phrasing 'political party' to denote a monarch's status.

It's true that I never learn political science seriously.

But, I dislike the idea. And we should not use Western perspective on this one.

It's just twisting with words, like trying to claim selfishness and legitimacy for a certain individual to govern everyone. And it's called political party. It just want to justified democracy is the right thing, because no more monopoly of power by a certain individual as a great idea. Western political science is built base on this kind of opinion, Western own experience.

I just call it as Chinese government. It's a natural process and need that people will govern by themselves. Certain individuals rose because they can prove their capability and responsibility to the society. Legitimacy and respect came from their meritocracy and their achievement. Government didn't forced upon the people, but instead it came from below, from the people itself, to organize the society, natural process. So basically the government is just the people himself.

There's no need a kind of representative of power with political parties, and everyone who want to give aspiration and voice must thru a kind of agent, the political parties.

Modern Chinese prefer the ancient system of Yellow Emperor (Huangdi) based on meritocracy, than the dynastic system. It's hard to explain this, more cultural aspect.

The different probably is like lobbying in US and guanxi in China. It's probably the same thing, but cultural different. Chinese people can call US lobbying as guanxi, but rejected completely by US. Culturally different.

 

[gambit]

It's true that I never learn political science seriously.

But, I dislike the idea. And we should not use Western perspective on this one.

Politics exists the moment two or more persons gathered together, even if just for coffee.

Politics exists between friends, men and women, husbands and wives, sibling and sibling, bosses and subordinates, and a monarch to his subjects. There is no such thing as a 'Western' perspective on this. Political science is universal, no matter the language being used, and it is a study about competing interests in a group. Do not tell me that such did not exist in ancient China.

The Chinese Communist Party may not be 'communists' in fact or even in belief, but there is one aspect of communism that they need to keep order in China -- dictatorship. The Party need to be a dictator, like an emperor, to provide the people with at least a facade of a national moral compass. But the Party cannot change its label to be the 'Chinese Dictatorship Party', right? The facade here is that China is being ostensibly guided by an ideology that is supposedly greater than mankind, not just greater than the Chinese and their petty desires. When people are willing to sacrifice their lives to defend an emperor or an ideal, it is a message to observers that for the deceased, their lives to them are petty compared to the object of their passion. And if a life is petty, then how much more petty should money and materialism be?

So did the Chinese Communist Party changed its label to the Chinese Dictatorship Party? No. Despite the fact that every Chinese, from the lowliest peasant to the Secretary General of the Party itself, know that it is a facade, it is perfectly in tune with the human nature -- the desire to believe in something greater than one's self. But to openly support a dictatorship over one's self to the point of making it constitutionally apparent would be too embarrassing, even though every Chinese know that a dictatorship is ruling over them. It is better to live under a facade of communist idealism than to openly admit to the world that we approves our own slavery by a master, or claque of masters, just as petty as ourselves.

China will live wearing this mask for a very long time.

 

[NiceGuy]

The Chinese Communist Party may not be 'communists' in fact or even in belief, but there is one aspect of communism that they need to keep order in China -- dictatorship. The Party need to be a dictator, like an emperor, to provide the people with at least a facade of a national moral compass. But the Party cannot change its label to be the 'Chinese Dictatorship Party', right? The facade here is that China is being ostensibly guided by an ideology that is supposedly greater than mankind, not just greater than the Chinese and their petty desires. When people are willing to sacrifice their lives to defend an emperor or an ideal, it is a message to observers that for the deceased, their lives to them are petty compared to the object of their passion. And if a life is petty, then how much more petty should money and materialism be?

Did Max say anything abt dictatorship in his communist theory ??

Communism is more of an economic system, while dictatorship is more of a governing system. They may provide idea circumstances for each other, (for example, heavy government intervention may be ideal for the equality that communism promotes) but they fall under different categories, instead being different or similar things under the same category.

However, it is true that most countries that call themselves communist happen to have a more dictatorship oriented system. well its tricky, the theory of communism isn't meant to be a dictatorship but it turns into it, for example, the USSR was meant to be communist but when Stalin came to power he ruled as a dictator. the link below really helped me answer the question A communist dictatorship
Is communism a dictatorship

Gambit is just like a Bull that hate everything in Red color

 

[gambit]

Did Max say anything abt dictatorship in his communist theory ??

No, he did not. But since communism came on the world stage, every communist country have always been a dictatorship. If communists are so certain of the attractiveness of Marxism, then why not allow competing political parties? Does Viet Nam have other political parties other than the communists?

Gambit is just like a Bull that hate everything in Red color

Why not? Communism is the most evil political system in modern history.

 

[NiceGuy]

No, he did not. But since communism came on the world stage, every communist country have always been a dictatorship. If communists are so certain of the attractiveness of Marxism, then why not allow competing political parties? Does Viet Nam have other political parties other than the communists?

Then,its not a true communist state,no countries that call themselves communist now meet the essental conditions to become a real communist country as Max said

Marx predicted a proletariat revolution would take place in a heavily industrialized country like Germany or England. Heavy industry is what created capitalism and its inherent class struggle between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. In an agrarian economy like Russia's was at the time, the two classes were not drawn distinctly enough to create enough impetus for the workers to revolt. The Russian Revolution was driven by politics, whereas Marx predicted a revolution driven by economics.Where did Karl marx think a communist revolution would take place first

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...chinese-style-democracy-11.html#ixzz2bMBXAvjQ

 

[gambit]

Then,its not a true communist state,no countries that call themselves communist now meet the essental conditions to become a real communist country as Max said

Of course not, and I said so many times before. China is currently an intellectual and moral fraudulent state. But since the ruling party calls itself 'communist', why not use it?

 

[NiceGuy]

Of course not, and I said so many times before. China is currently an intellectual and moral fraudulent state. But since the ruling party calls itself 'communist', why not use it?

China rulling party can call itself:'father of USA' too,whats the problem wt the name when it cant change the fact ?

 

[gambit]

China rulling party can call itself:'father of USA' too,whats the problem wt the name when it cant change the fact ?

Sure it can. But see who is going to take that label seriously. You are going nowhere with this. Am gone, young man.