[Smittoh]

Another note - if cult of personality is what made those systems bad then you really don't know why you are against them.

[bWn4h8QD]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Saras, I believe you're just one of those gone wild after the fall of the Soviets. You think everything with the slightest connection to Marx must be associated with pictures of Soviet tanks in Vilnius and yadda yadda yadda. How I was genuinely curious

[Reatclaplen]

Is China Communist?

Sure it is but it is not Maoist/Stalinist anymore...so Communism is viable, but it needs a "decent" implementation, like in France

[Grainiary]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
Is China Communist?

Sure it is... No, it's really not. It may call itself communist, but that's another matter. North Korea calls itself a Democratic (People's) Republic.

-Arrian

[zenihan]

aaaa... but USSR called itself communist but it wasn't communist either... much further from "communist
ideals" than either Cuba, or Yugoslavia, or even todays China...

so it depends on how you define "communism" as technically there are many variations on the theme... to me France is really the closest to it in many respects but would not count itself as such... while Cuba and China have it "traditionally", so they should count ...

ultimately it can be viable, and it is viable in at least Chinese implementation... Yugo implementation could have been viable too, but it was built on an unstable mix of nations which ultimately fell apart...

[Pedsshuth]

I believe that at this point, Marx's basic economic ideas have been proven wrong. But his philosophical ideas have not.

Every single regime that has arisen under the name of Communism did so based more on Lenin's ideas than Marx's. All those groups attempted to hijack history as it were with their own hands, and force a change that at least according to the most orthodox Marxists thinking, those states were not ready for.

The question becomes that as Capitalism continues to develop, will Marx's ideas come back. After all, we really don't kow when we will reach the apex of this current system.

[Zvssxstw]

Originally posted by Kidicious


China has created legal rights for rich property owners. How can you call yourself communist when you do that? well it is just a development, in France you practically cannot get fired, how can you call yourself capitalist with that :-)

so it is a scale, and ideas/implementations develop, but China is definitely a Commie country with commie traditions both good and bad ones...

[Pjayjukr]

exactly, depends what you want to focus on... but looking at the basics - did China like Cuba have a commie revolution, yes... is it ruled by communist party, yes... do they consider themself Communist, yes... so for all intents and purposes it's a Commie country and allowing the rich to own property, do business is a communist development, accepted by the party etc...

Like capitalism progressed towards "commie like" ideas of worker protection, extra taxation of the wealthy etc... so on the other side of the spectrum Commie China progressed and realized rich are not pure scum, but have to be accepted into the fold for "the greater good" ... they still differ on great many things from the west, but they are viable, and more so by the minute... The main difference from USSR and China communism is that China on time started to differentiate and develop while USSR did not manage and economically collapsed as a result (both were almost the same communist type in 1950's)...

[Intory]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
exactly, depends what you want to focus on... but looking at the basics - did China like Cuba have a commie revolution, yes... is it ruled by communist party, yes... do they consider themself Communist, yes... so for all intents and purposes it's a Commie country and allowing the rich to own property, do business is a communist development, accepted by the party etc... They aren't really a communist party and I don't think they actually think that they are, any more that NK believes that they are democratic. Indeed, they created laws that protect rich property owners. They know that they are not communist anymore. They made a conscience decision.

Deciding to make it harder for employers to fire employees is not a conscience decision to choose communism. France isn't trying to be communist, at least not in a non-French way.

[interznakinfo]

Originally posted by Kidicious


They aren't really a communist party and I don't think they actually think that they are, any more that NK believes that they are democratic. Indeed, they created laws that protect rich property owners. They know that they are not communist anymore. They made a conscience decision.

Deciding to make it harder for employers to fire employees is not a conscience decision to choose communism. France isn't trying to be communist, at least not in a non-French way. What is the difference between the development of a system and "they decided not to be communist anymore"?

just the easiest read here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_China

will tell you that China is very much communist in effect and here is the dude who made it all possible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping

sure they are not Maoist or Stalinist anymore, but they are just evolved communism... if USSR managed to transition in 1980's and did not fall apart in 1990... would you still consider them commies, - I am sure you would ...

Yugo ommunisim was a lot more advanced than Chineze in 1980's but the state fell apart due to inbuilt instability... but despite of it being progressive economically and socially, the west still considered Yugoslavia to be a communist state... China is no different today.

[PemiaGefe]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
sure they are not Maoist or Stalinist anymore, but they are just evolved communism... if USSR managed to transition in 1980's and did not fall apart in 1990... would you still consider them commies, - I am sure you would ...
They are not evolved communism. That's a very strange idea. In fact, the only real reason that they were communist in the first place is because they didn't believe in creating class differences. They have abandoned that now, so they are in no way whatsoever communist. Capitalism is not evolved communism. The problem is that they were never communist in the first place but they at least were against class differences.

[biannaruh]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
there is a whole raft of ideas about progress and liberty that Marx believed in that are relevant today, even within an entirely capitalist context. In fact, they are more in line with laissez-faire economic and social systems than the rising 'illiberal liberalism' with eco-fundamentalist topping. Like what?