What's new

Do the Chinese Like or Dislike Chinese Communist Party?

GameSparta500

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
besides all the hypocrisy, the stupidy, and bias of the western media on the "evil chinese goverment" lets get down it..

do the majority of people's republic of china citizens support the CCP, or do not support it.. yes there has been protest in china, but it seems like alot of chinese citizens are fine with the CCP
 
As long as the government keeps up good policies and offer more and more opportunities to the Chinese people, they are willing to endure for now, less political freedom. And it should be said that the CCP is not unresponsive to public opinion. The quick handling of incidents like Li Gang, I believe was based on public opinion of the case.
 
I don't have the sources handy but independent polling organization have all found the overwhelming majority of Chinese are supportive of the government and they are optimistic about their future.
 
The CPC has almost as many people as Germany. Can you say for sure whether you hate everyone in Germany, or love everyone in Germany? But we all know Germany has been a consistently strong performing economy.
 
The CPC has almost as many people as Germany. Can you say for sure whether you hate everyone in Germany, or love everyone in Germany? But we all know Germany has been a consistently strong performing economy.

China is not democratic in the commonly referred to sense, but it does allow participation in government. This route lies in joining the party and working your way up positions of responsibility. That way regular people can with talent and good education work their way up in leadership.

This approach is evident in China's current leadership where leaders are engineers.
 
An article on China as a meritocracy and technocracy.


Made in China: The Revenge of the Nerds - TIME


The nerds are running the show in today's China. In the twenty years since Deng Xiaoping's reforms kicked in, the composition of the Chinese leadership has shifted markedly in favor of technocrats -- that is, individuals holding actual or putative political office who majored in natural sciences or engineering in college. The Maoist Reds who dominated politics during the Cultural Revolution have long since been eclipsed by resurgent Experts. These techno-intellectuals' were once themselves targeted by the Gang of Four and zealous Red Guards because of their suspect class backgrounds, allegedly elitist attitudes, and affiliations with the "capitalist roaders," Liu Shaoqi and Deng himself. But now they hold sway in the Politburo, the Central Committee, the National People's Congress, and even provincial, municipal, and county governments. It's no exaggeration to describe the current regime as a technocracy. Yes, China is the land of Nerd Empowerment.

Take a look at the seven members of the current Standing Committee of the 15th Central Committee. The Big Three in the Chinese oligarchy were all trained as electrical engineers: President Jiang Zemin at Shanghai's Jiatong University, Li Peng in the Soviet Union, and Premier Zhu Rongji at Beijing's prestigious Tsinghua University. Hu Jintao graduated from Tsinghua in hydroelectric engineering. Wei Jianxing studied mechanical engineering at the Dalian Engineering Institute. Vice Premier Li Lanqing earned his degree in automotive engineering from Fudan University. Of the seven, only Li Ruihuan did not graduate from a four-year institute with an engineering degree. But he did earn a college certificate by taking night classes at the Beijing Spare-time Architecture Engineering Institute.

How did this happen? At a basic level, you might say that technocratic politics is a natural fit with the Chinese political culture, steeped as it is in the Confucian tradition. From time immemorial, statecraft and scholarship have been intertwined in the Chinese mind. Beginning as early as the Han Dynasty (206 BC--AD 220) officials were selected in ostensibly meritocratic civil service examinations, in which they were tested on their knowledge of and familiarity with the Confucian canon. "Let those who labor with their heads rule over those who labor with their hands," Mencius said, codifying an attitude that remains ingrained in the Chinese approach to leadership.

New wine filled this old bottle during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as a bureaucracy predicated on Confucian learning proved inadequate to the challenges of modernity. Supplanting Confucianism, at least among the cognoscenti, was the belief system that they thought lay at the heart of Western wealth and power: Science. By the time of the May Fourth Movement (which centered on the student demonstrations of May 4, 1919), science -- or, more accurately, scientism -- had become a secular religion among China's forward-thinking New Youth. It was in large part the supposedly scientific basis of Marxism-Leninism that led many of the May Fourth youth to embrace that ideology. (Ironically, it was in the name of Marxism-Leninism that China's scientists suffered their darkest hour, during the Cultural Revolution.)

After the Maoist madness abated and Deng Xiaoping inaugurated the opening and reforms that began in late 1978, scientific and technical intellectuals were among the first to be rehabilitated. Realizing that they were the key to the Four Modernizations embraced by the reformers, concerted efforts were made to bring the "experts" back into the fold.

During the 1980s, technocracy as a concept was much talked about, especially in the context of so-called "Neo-Authoritarianism" -- the principle at the heart of the "Asian Developmental Model" that South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan had pursued with apparent success. The basic beliefs and assumptions of the technocrats were laid out quite plainly: Social and economic problems were akin to engineering problems and could be understood, addressed, and eventually solved as such. Qian Xuesen, a protégé of Theodore von Karman and the father of the Chinese space program, taught at MIT in 1940s and returned to China in 1955. He became a Central Committee member and Vice Chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. In the early 1980s Qian proposed that by the year 2000, all cadres should be college graduates, that all leaders at county and bureau level should hold masters degrees, and all full or deputy ministers and provincial governors should hold PhDs. Qian also likened the government to the design department in an aerospace engineering outfit: He said it should be mainly composed of scientists and engineers.

The open hostility to religion that Beijing exhibits at times -- most notably in its obsessive drive to stamp out the "evil cult" of Falun Gong -- has pre-Marxist roots. Scientism underlies the post-Mao technocracy, and it is the orthodoxy against which heresies are measured.
 
Please note that Western reports about Jasmine Revolution.
China has 1.3 billion people, only 100 dissidents, only 2 people to the site to participate in Jasmine Revolution.

I think that is enough.
CPC did a good job, China has sustained rapid growth for 33 years. Why should we oppose it?
 
I can't say everyone is happy with everything CCP has done, but I am pretty sure Chinese citizens don't hate CCP as much as most foreigners have expected.
 
I can't say everyone is happy with anything CCP has done, but I am pretty Chinese citizens don't hate CCP as much as most foreigners have expected.

No and I think the CCP can do a better job of acknowledging discontent but even those who doesn't like the CCP, respects it to an extent.
 
What is most important is opening up the political system for more fuller participation, that is to say, to control and suppress exceptionally bad officials. I do not think people with PhDs are higher IQ peoples than others and more fit to make decisions, especially regarding things outside their area of expertise. There are far too many PhDs that are just plain dumb and don't know how to get along with others. I completely disagree with Qian's remarks. Leadership can't be quantified, though I love quantitative things, and leading a country is NOT an engineering problem, the actual "engineering" is never carried out by the top bosses.

However, we must have common sense, and not do stupid things like buy salt to avoid radioactive. This shows that despite our progress, our country still has too many IGNORANT people and CRIMINALS who manipulate ignorant people.
 
What is most important is opening up the political system for more fuller participation, that is to say, to control and suppress exceptionally bad officials. I do not think people with PhDs are higher IQ peoples than others and more fit to make decisions, especially regarding things outside their area of expertise. There are far too many PhDs that are just plain dumb and don't know how to get along with others. I completely disagree with Qian's remarks. Leadership can't be quantified, though I love quantitative things, and leading a country is NOT an engineering problem, the actual "engineering" is never carried out by the top bosses.

However, we must have common sense, and not do stupid things like buy salt to avoid radioactive. This shows that despite our progress, our country still has too many IGNORANT people and CRIMINALS who manipulate ignorant people.

To get good leaders, we have to setup an institutional environment in which good leaders thrive and get promoted and bad leaders struggle and eventually get booted or marginalized. This is something is requires a careful approach and carefully managed incentives.
 
The Western democracy isn't suitable for China, not every nations are adaptable with the Western democracy, take Iraq for example.

Why not let us choosing our own destiny? Only the Western chauvinism with racist slavery mind would force us to adapt their political system.
 
The Western democracy isn't suitable for China, not every nations are adaptable with the Western democracy, take Iraq for example.

Why not let us choosing our own destiny? Only the Western chauvinism with racist slavery mind would force us to adapt their political system.

:coffee: The democracy is suitable for China. But not Western-style democracy.
We should be the basis of collectivism and pragmatism, Building a Chinese-style democracy country.
 
There has been a lot of confusions and misinterpretations made on the CPC. As Cardsharp had already pointed out. The people doesn't really care so long they are doing the country good and is creating more opportunities for its people.

People are to be reminded that comparing the communism in modern China to the old is like comparing the white cat to the black cat.
 
things that make you go hmmm....

8 out 10 people who profess love for the CCP have themselves run off to another country and would not, have not gone back to the love they profess. They also have not given up their love for the very same freedoms they enjoy in those very " evil" western worlds they crib about-

BUT YET! ask the people in china to " accept" - the lack of those very freedoms. Yup- things that make you hmmm...
 
Back
Top Bottom