Progressives vs liberals

[uncle bernard]

10 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

It's not worth continuing the conversation.  This is a decades long tactic done by communist sympathizers.  Any time something deviates from the manifesto it's automatically deemed not communism even if the direct result is due to communism 

What are you complaining about? China reformed their economy in the 70's and 80's to look more like ours. They reformed their collective farming, opened up for foreign investment, allowed private business enterprise and privatized quite a bit of their government services. That's why they have billionaires now and tons of private business.

You guys should be cheering them on. They're one of the most successful capitialist reformation projects in history.

This is like when people think Russia is still a communist country because it was 50 years ago.

 

[PortaJohn]

9 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

I'm not a communist sympathizer but I can objectively spot a communist society.  Further, I can understand the appeal and practicality that socialism or communism holds for the masses of an absolutely corrupt society, such as the one in Batista's Cuba.

I would hope any half intelligent human could understand the appeal of communism.  But that wasn't  part of my conversation with you.  Initially, to you, I listed other aspects at play  in modern day China.  No, Communism is not the only ideology/societal structure in town.  But it is still the main player in town and to disregard it and to make the claim China isn't Communist in my opinion is incorrect 

Edited October 30, 2023 by PortaJohn

[uncle bernard]

1 minute ago, mspart said:

You are perhaps the only person in the world that says China is not communist.   You need to start a club.

mspart

No, he happens to actually know what he's talking about.

[mspart]

Just now, uncle bernard said:

No, he happens to actually know what he's talking about.

Oh, he has a club now. 

mspart

[Plasmodium]

2 minutes ago, mspart said:

You are perhaps the only person in the world that says China is not communist.   You need to start a club.

mspart

Too late.  We already have one.  It is funded by almost 1000 billionaires, which is more than any other country BTW.

[uncle bernard]

2 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

I would hope any half intelligent human could understand the appeal of communism.  But that wasn't  part of my conversation with you.  Initially, to you, I listed other aspects at play  in modern day China.  No, Communism is not the only ideology/societal structure in town.  But it is still the main player in town and to disregard it and to make the claim China isn't Communist in my opinion is incorrect 

It's a mixed market economy. That is by definition not communist. 

[mspart]

3 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

I would hope any half intelligent human could understand the appeal of communism.  But that wasn't  part of my conversation with you.  Initially, to you, I listed other aspects at play  in modern day China.  No, Communism is not the only ideology/societal structure in town.  But it is still the main player in town and to disregard it for a Chinese Mainlander is dangerous to their health and to make the claim China isn't Communist in my opinion is incorrect 

FIFY.

mspart

[Plasmodium]

5 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

What are you complaining about? China reformed their economy in the 70's and 80's to look more like ours. They reformed their collective farming, opened up for foreign investment, allowed private business enterprise and privatized quite a bit of their government services. That's why they have billionaires now and tons of private business.

You guys should be cheering them on. They're one of the most successful capitialist reformation projects in history.

This is like when people think Russia is still a communist country because it was 50 years ago.

 

Well said.

[uncle bernard]

Just now, Plasmodium said:

Well said.

These people are allergic to knowing anything about the world they live in.

[Plasmodium]

3 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

These people are allergic to knowing anything about the world they live in.

At least the teenager they mock is paying attention.  Where have we seen that before?!

[jross]

Communism is not a monolithic ideology

[uncle bernard]

1 minute ago, jross said:

Communism is not a monolithic ideology

maybe true, but that tent isn't big enough for billionaires. mutually exclusive economic systems.

[jross]

China is failing on the classless front.  The country's wealth disparity rivals the USA.

[uncle bernard]

In its explicit theory of governance, the CCP acknowledges China is not "communist" yet. In the 70's, they decided they needed to grow as an economy before they could achieve communism (referring to Marx's stages of history where the economic development under capitalism paves the way for communism). This is sometimes called Dengism or "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics." So, they opened the economy up and that's where we are now: one of the world's largest, most productive capitalist economies.

The CCP remains a "communist" party because its ultimate stated goal is communism. But they seem quite a ways off from that, whatever that even means. 

[Plasmodium]

3 minutes ago, jross said:

China is failing on the classless front.  The country's wealth disparity rivals the USA.

Sounds like you are coming around!

[mspart]

https://hbr.org/2021/05/what-the-west-gets-wrong-about-china

...  One thing hasn’t changed, though: Many Western politicians and business executives still don’t get China. Believing, for example, that political freedom would follow the new economic freedoms, they wrongly assumed that China’s internet would be similar to the freewheeling and often politically disruptive version developed in the West. And believing that China’s economic growth would have to be built on the same foundations as those in the West, many failed to envisage the Chinese state’s continuing role as investor, regulator, and intellectual property owner.

...  Many Westerners assume that China is on the same development trajectory that Japan, Britain, Germany, and France embarked on in the immediate aftermath of World War II—the only difference being that the Chinese started much later than other Asian economies, such as South Korea and Malaysia, after a 40-year Maoist detour. According to this view, economic growth and increasing prosperity will cause China to move toward a more liberal model for both its economy and its politics, as did those countries.

...  In China, however, growth has come in the context of stable communist rule, suggesting that democracy and growth are not inevitably mutually dependent. In fact, many Chinese believe that the country’s recent economic achievements—large-scale poverty reduction, huge infrastructure investment, and development as a world-class tech innovator—have come about because of, not despite, China’s authoritarian form of government. Its aggressive handling of Covid-19—in sharp contrast to that of many Western countries with higher death rates and later, less-stringent lockdowns—has, if anything, reinforced that view.

Quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck. 

mspart

 

[uncle bernard]

6 minutes ago, mspart said:

https://hbr.org/2021/05/what-the-west-gets-wrong-about-china

...  One thing hasn’t changed, though: Many Western politicians and business executives still don’t get China. Believing, for example, that political freedom would follow the new economic freedoms, they wrongly assumed that China’s internet would be similar to the freewheeling and often politically disruptive version developed in the West. And believing that China’s economic growth would have to be built on the same foundations as those in the West, many failed to envisage the Chinese state’s continuing role as investor, regulator, and intellectual property owner.

...  Many Westerners assume that China is on the same development trajectory that Japan, Britain, Germany, and France embarked on in the immediate aftermath of World War II—the only difference being that the Chinese started much later than other Asian economies, such as South Korea and Malaysia, after a 40-year Maoist detour. According to this view, economic growth and increasing prosperity will cause China to move toward a more liberal model for both its economy and its politics, as did those countries.

...  In China, however, growth has come in the context of stable communist rule, suggesting that democracy and growth are not inevitably mutually dependent. In fact, many Chinese believe that the country’s recent economic achievements—large-scale poverty reduction, huge infrastructure investment, and development as a world-class tech innovator—have come about because of, not despite, China’s authoritarian form of government. Its aggressive handling of Covid-19—in sharp contrast to that of many Western countries with higher death rates and later, less-stringent lockdowns—has, if anything, reinforced that view.

Quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck. 

mspart

 

I'm seeing the problem here. You think "communism" is a synonym for authoritarianism. You can be a capitalist authoritarian state. In fact, they exist all over the world!

[mspart]

I think when a political organization calls themselves communist it is a good thing to believe them.  Xi is not the leader of the democratic capitalists of China.   He is the leader of the CCP, Chinese Communist Party.   They run everything in China.   Did you not get the memo?

mspart

[jross]

1 minute ago, Plasmodium said:

Sounds like you are coming around!

Uncle's comment supports that China strives to do what it says in its constitution.  We've been talking now about Deng Xiaoping Theory.  

Quote

The Communist Party of China takes Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, the important thought of Three Represents and the Scientific Outlook on Development as its guide to action.

...

China is ruled by a single majority party that suppresses political consent and criticism... as it favors the CCP political party and the "collective" taking precedence over individual liberties.  It spies on its citizens and censures... showing elements of authoritarianism and totalitarianism.  State-owned enterprises in China are still common and often have monopolies...

You can point out that different ideologies overlap, but much of the ascribed country behavior fits Communism... the party name is Communism... the constitution says Communism... 

[mspart]

If it looks like a communist and quacks like a communist and talks like a communist and says it is a communist,  it is a communist. 

mspart

[Plasmodium]

4 minutes ago, mspart said:

If it looks like a communist and quacks like a communist and talks like a communist and says it is a communist,  it is a communist. 

mspart

What is it when somebody says it quacks like a communist even when others demonstrate it doesn't?

[mspart]

You have demonstrated nothing of the sort. 

mspart

[jross]

2 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

You didn't answer the question.   The question seeks to determine whether life was diminished under communism for the average Cuban, not the wealthy.  Immigration numbers fifty years add nothing meaningful.

Yes, regardless of educational improvements and such, other parts of life were diminished, and that's why after the initial 250K golden exile, another 260K working-class immigrants came to the USA as part of the Freedom Flights.  Again, more immigrants in two individual immigrant waves than from 1900 to 1959 combined.
 

Quote

Many Cubans were eager to leave the country in pursuit of freedom. Critics saw Castro as a classical Latin American caudillo, a ruler who treated the country like his personal property.^[2] The government suppressed religion and confiscated private property.^[2][4] A climate of fear prevailed over all aspects of life. Silvio, a Cuban, remarks, "Everyone lives in fear all the time."^[2] A Cuban-American, Octavio, observes, "Cuba itself was a prison".^[2] The US promised a different climate. María Rodríguez recounts the emotional story of first seeing the country: "I cried quietly while kissing the [American] flag and said a prayer.... For the first time in my life, I felt free."^[1]

...

Refugees of the Freedom Flight era were more likely to be women or elderly people than working age men because of emigration restrictions. Those who emigrated were also more likely to be in the working class with about 57% of refugees within that socioeconomic class.

...

Although the Castro government initially allowed citizens to leave, it would eventually discourage emigration by harassing and humiliating Cubans who signed up for the program. The program quickly gained popularity; by March 1968, over one million people were on the waiting list.^[13] Those on the waitlist were fired from their jobs, deemed "enemies of the state," and hassled by members of the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDRs).^[2] Some were interned in camps far from their homes and families, and their property was confiscated upon their departure.^[2] Castro also referred to those who left as gusanos (worms) and insisted to the Cuban people that Cuba was better off without them because the gusanos were the bourgeoisie, who had capitalized on them in the earlier system.^[4][14] The actions worked only minimally. Although one million people were on the waitlist in March 1968, a Chicago Tribune poll in April 1966 found that almost two million Cubans wanted to leave.^[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Flights 

[Plasmodium]

17 minutes ago, jross said:

Yes, regardless of educational improvements and such, other parts of life were diminished, and that's why after the initial 250K golden exile, another 260K working-class immigrants came to the USA as part of the Freedom Flights.  Again, more immigrants in two individual immigrant waves than from 1900 to 1959 combined.
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Flights 

The immigration from Cuba doesn't paint Cuban communism in a worse light than immigration from elsewhere and different socio-economic systems, including capitalist ones.

Cuba is no paradise.  Communism there should have had its reforms long ago.  However, the question was intended to point out how bad it was under Batista and the fact that there are systems much worse than Cuban communism.  The average Cuban was less free under Batista than they are 50+ years after the revolution.  The revolution didn't happen in a vacuum.

[mspart]

13 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Cuba is no paradise. 

You got that right.  Everyone, except the party elite, share in the misery.  

mspart