For China the end of the Communist party is nigh — but in name only

[Audio]

we should strive to simplify everything to the maximum extent possible, be that political system or be that technology.

I disagree. Especially on the technology part.

However, "fancy talk" should not be a vehicle to obfuscate intentions of the people in power and should also not be a means to itself. Namely, sometimes, all you have to do is apply what i call "peasant common sense" and things have a tendency to fall nicely into place.

--------------------

Now for the topic:

Singapore was mentioned, as liberal democracy. That's a good joke if i ever heard one. The system is rigged so that ruling party gets a disproportional number of seats as long as it wins majority (60% vote yields 90% seats iirc). Furthermore, the system (Lee Kuan Yew's family) has weeded out many a competitor through costly court procedures and similar measures.

Now, the link to China....Lee Kuan Yew's principle was, never loose power, but give the people enough so they do not rebel. I believe Xi jinping is aiming for this goal, if the recent consolidation of power is anything to go by (disguised as anti-corruption fight-it's effect has been to clear the Party of any subversive elements and cluiques and to cull the power of long standing PLA generals).

 

[tranquilium]

That is actually a very good point you make , and it is indeed a hard decision that our elected officials are forced to make. That is part of the responsibilities of those in power, they were chosen from amongst the people to represent and be the voice of the people. To make decisions that are to benefit the people. In times like that I like to see that decision making process by members of the legislature, judiciary do so according to their moral conscience. In the end, one has to always keep in mind the cost - benefits vantage point; does a certain policy pose greater benefit for society than cost, or will a policy cost more than it gives benefit? That is part of the political dialectic paradigm.

As an academic, i can't help it, bhai jaan @jamahir

This is one problem I have with the US elective system is that in addition to your normal duties of making decisions to govern the nation, you are also burdened with the necessity with keeping your financial supporters, such as corporate entities, happy. The normal duty is difficult enough. With the additional constraint, the process becomes more difficult. There really isn't a straight forward solution to this, not in the present world. The Chinese system is not above the influence either. One main cause of corruption is personal greed gets into the way of decision making.

I disagree. Especially on the technology part.

However, "fancy talk" should not be a vehicle to obfuscate intentions of the people in power and should also not be a means to itself. Namely, sometimes, all you have to do is apply what i call "peasant common sense" and things have a tendency to fall nicely into place.

--------------------

Now for the topic:

Singapore was mentioned, as liberal democracy. That's a good joke if i ever heard one. The system is rigged so that ruling party gets a disproportional number of seats as long as it wins majority (60% vote yields 90% seats iirc). Furthermore, the system (Lee Kuan Yew's family) has weeded out many a competitor through costly court procedures and similar measures.

Now, the link to China....Lee Kuan Yew's principle was, never loose power, but give the people enough so they do not rebel. I believe Xi jinping is aiming for this goal, if the recent consolidation of power is anything to go by (disguised as anti-corruption fight-it's effect has been to clear the Party of any subversive elements and cluiques and to cull the power of long standing PLA generals).

In the engineering profession, simplification generally means the loss of details. However, it is not completely without merit. In information delivery, simplification can also leads to faster delivery and lower cost. It is the sort of compromise the designer has to make.

I will not comment on the Singapore issue, because Singapore really isn't the same as China and it will be apples and oranges.

sometimes you write in such complicated college language.

we should strive to simplify everything to the maximum extent possible, be that political system or be that technology.

I do believe politics is a complex enough issue to warrant a discussion in thorough language. As an engineer, I was trained to make things more presentable and easier to understand, but sufficiently complex issues simply has no simplification (no pan intended).

 

[jamahir]

I do believe politics is a complex enough issue to warrant a discussion in thorough language. As an engineer, I was trained to make things more presentable and easier to understand, but sufficiently complex issues simply has no simplification (no pan intended).

politics is complex only because many societies refuse to see the simplicity of socialism/communism... and direct-democracy is the simplest political arrangement of society.

even analysis of political events ( regime-changes, economic downturns, alliances, invasions etc ) can be simplified by looking at the big picture.

I disagree. Especially on the technology part.

but why not??

if elon musk had to build his rockets which had to be more reliable than others, he learnt by simplifying for himself the available rocket systems and also thinking of novel solutions.

just look at how complicated computing is... most viruses are written for windows os because this os has a complicated automation for users that becomes too complicated for users to understand but is exploited by virus writers ( for reference - the stuxnet virus ).

However, "fancy talk" should not be a vehicle to obfuscate intentions of the people in power and should also not be a means to itself. Namely, sometimes, all you have to do is apply what i call "peasant common sense" and things have a tendency to fall nicely into place.

i agree.

 

[gambit]

I'm pretty sure that conservatives (and some liberals) consider Obama a demogauge and the liberals (as well as Rand Paul conservatives) consider the current Republican candidates to either be robbers or aiding robbers.

Then let the party members change their party names. At least we have contentions for the people to chose. What does your China have but a party where its members cannot make up its mind on what the party stands for ?

On the other hand I see little contradiction between CPC theory and practice - the primary means of production (land, labor, capital) are mostly publically owned with all land being state owned, price of labor being set with minimum wages, and state owned banks directing capital.

Marx said: 'From each according to his ability. To each according to his needs.'

Your China is contradicting what Marx commanded.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Then let the party members change their party names. At least we have contentions for the people to chose. What does your China have but a party where its members cannot make up its mind on what the party stands for ?


Marx said: 'From each according to his ability. To each according to his needs.'

Your China is contradicting what Marx commanded.

I don't see anywhere that ppl can't make up their mind on what the CPC stands for. There's a claim that ppl don't know what CPC stands for but its as valid as Nazi claims about the value of Slavic civilization.

I'm looking at the list of Karl Marx quotes right here and I don't see much contradiction.

Google

Why did you choose that quote lol? The US doesn't follow Adam Smith to the letter does it?

 

[gambit]

I don't see anywhere that ppl can't make up their mind on what the CPC stands for. There's a claim that ppl don't know what CPC stands for but its as valid as Nazi claims about the value of Slavic civilization.

I'm looking at the list of Karl Marx quotes right here and I don't see much contradiction.

Google

Why did you choose that quote lol? The US doesn't follow Adam Smith to the letter does it?

Of course you do not. Your one-percenter lives high on the hog but you see nothing contradictory. I did not expect anything else.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Of course you do not. Your one-percenter lives high on the hog but you see nothing contradictory. I did not expect anything else.

Even in the Soviet Union, the outcome of elite scientists, athletes and generals was not the same as the average person. There's a reason that the Soviet Union had medals and special rewards given out to those of exceptional merit - the Heroes of Labor and the Heroes of the Soviet Union.

The wealth gap of course exists in all developing countries.

 

[Beast]

As far as I know, even Han Chinese don't like their Muslim minority,

That is a poor perception due to western smearing in uyghur issue. Check out Hui minority in China and muslim in Gansu province. The number of Muslim officer in KMT in pre WWII. Separatism and muslim are 2 different things. Please do not mix up. Finally, check out who Zheng He in Chinese history.

 

[TaiShang]

It is strange for people to dug up the original Marxism theory and point towards its contradiction with the modern practices and proclaim it is some sort of problem. I thought should be obvious that after two hundreds years lots of things can change. Social conditions, technological advances all spark changes in the way a nation operates. When the Chinese cites Marxism, it is used as a historical reference, instead of some sorta of religious code that must be followed without question. For your information, when citing historical development of the modern day political theory, the citation is Marxism, Leninism, Mao's thoughts and Deng's theory. These represents the gradual evolution of political theory in China. It has changed in the past and it will continue to change in the future.

This particular "China expert" and an fact a majority that talk about how China has become a poor copy of Marxism-Leninist ideology pathetically miss out on the fact that the very nature of Marxism is historical dialecticism. Hence, unlike the rigid formulation of present-day conservative or liberal Western-style governance, Communism tends to evolve as the historical conditions change. This is only natural and anticipated in Marxist political theory.

The question of keeping the name is no-brainer; why would it be changed? The essence changes and evolves, but all the history associated with the development of the modern political life of the Chinese nation is all embedded and inherent in that title. It has symbolic meaning.

 

[gambit]

Even in the Soviet Union, the outcome of elite scientists, athletes and generals was not the same as the average person.

Why ? Because the Soviet Union, just like your China, is a facade, a sham, of Marxism. The Soviets had to acknowledge what capitalists have known all along -- that you must account for selfishness. I have said it many times before and I will repeat -- that the simple microwave oven could never come from the Soviet Union, China, or any Marxist/communist country.

Only when the Soviets had to give in to selfishness and greed, as in giving elite scientists, athletes, and military did those elite people performed to exceptional levels. The only difference between the Soviets and China is that China wised up to reality and made the departure from Marxism official by accepting capitalism. The distance what China is to what the CCP claimed to be in name is so great that it made the party's name useless. It is only cowardice that there is no change of the name.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Why ? Because the Soviet Union, just like your China, is a facade, a sham, of Marxism. The Soviets had to acknowledge what capitalists have known all along -- that you must account for selfishness. I have said it many times before and I will repeat -- that the simple microwave oven could never come from the Soviet Union, China, or any Marxist/communist country.

Only when the Soviets had to give in to selfishness and greed, as in giving elite scientists, athletes, and military did those elite people performed to exceptional levels. The only difference between the Soviets and China is that China wised up to reality and made the departure from Marxism official by accepting capitalism. The distance what China is to what the CCP claimed to be in name is so great that it made the party's name useless. It is only cowardice that there is no change of the name.

Just as European absolute monarchies and theocracies did not completely follow the Bible word for word and the US does not follow Adam Smith word for word, I see no reason why socialist nations have to follow Marx word for word.

 

[gambit]

Just as European absolute monarchies and theocracies did not completely follow the Bible word for word and the US does not follow Adam Smith word for word, I see no reason why socialist nations have to follow Marx word for word.

True...That means the German Democratic Republic, aka East Germany, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, aka North Korea, should be taken at face value that they are 'democratic' since neither must follow the principles of democracy word for word.

This is why it is so entertaining to watch you Chinese mental gymnastics in defending China.

 

[Nan Yang]

Times change. Most of nation today operates differently than how they operate half a century ago.

One thing I would like to note is that human political systems are subject to constant evolution and the present day system will eventually become out-dated, but eventually adapting new system more compatible with the changing environment is by no means the same thing with jumping to an old system that is incompatible with the nation. USSR's dissolution is a good example of this.

In this universe, there is only one constant. And that constant is change - Yi Jing 易经 or The book of Changes.

I lived in both US and Canada. I have seen news in other countries with various forms of elective government. I can honest say that it is BS to believe that the majority (or in some case, slightly bigger group) opinion of the mass can determine the best outcome for complex endeavors such as selecting the leadership of a nation.

The best qualified people for any job is best chosen by their peers. Not by ordinary people on the street.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

True...That means the German Democratic Republic, aka East Germany, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, aka North Korea, should be taken at face value that they are 'democratic' since neither must follow the principles of democracy word for word.

This is why it is so entertaining to watch you Chinese mental gymnastics in defending China.

maybe my logic was too complicated for you. its k.

 

[Audio]

but why not??

if elon musk had to build his rockets which had to be more reliable than others, he learnt by simplifying for himself the available rocket systems and also thinking of novel solutions.

Mate, Elon Musk is just a guy that's sucking on US .gov tit. They are sponsoring him for his propaganda value (look here, private companies go in space in US). And SpaceX stuff isn't in any way revolutionary, what they're trying to do which would constitute as a revolution (vertical landing of carrier rocket) has failed a couple of times already.

Not saying he isn't a visionary, but i have my doubts simplification brought SpaceX to the forefront. How are SpaceX's rockets more reliable?

just a tip of the iceberg

Opinion: SpaceX ‘routinely’ fails to launch, imposes media blackout causing firestorm - SpaceFlight Insider

just look at how complicated computing is... most viruses are written for windows os because this os has a complicated automation for users that becomes too complicated for users to understand but is exploited by virus writers ( for reference - the stuxnet virus ).

Most viruses for Windows are written because Windows is the OS that's spread out the most. IE a virus maker gets more "return on his time invested" (whatever his intentions-be it syphoming data, syphoning computer power etc etc) in writing if he writes for Win OS.