China- Propoganda, Censorship and the "Thought Police"

[Ramrod]

Sorry m8 but it's still communist...link...... etc......
.............wishful thinking doesn't make embarrassing left wing ideologies go away BBking

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Sorry m8 but it's still communist...link...... etc......
.............wishful thinking doesn't make embarrassing left wing ideologies go away BBking

Hmmmm, my brother works in China for a major western capitalist organisation, selling in to the domestic market. That's not really communism in action. The current administration is very tolerant of capitalist actions by its own and other citizens, albeit often with government involvement (or shareholdings if you prefer)

[danielf]

Originally Posted by andyl

Hmmmm, my brother works in China for a major western capitalist organisation, selling in to the domestic market. That's not really communism in action. The current administration is very tolerant of capitalist actions by its own and other citizens, albeit often with government involvement (or shareholdings if you prefer)

Don't forget that little has changed (business-wise) in Hong Kong either. Still one of the most capitalist cities/places in the world.

[BBKing]

It would be embarrassing if I had ever *supported* it, Ramrod, but tanks for the wikipedia link, as it handily supports my argument:

There is a variety of opinions about the Communist Party of China, and opinions about the CPC often create unexpected political alliances and divisions. For example, many chief executive officers of Western companies tend to have favorable impressions of the CPC, while many revolutionary Maoists and other Marxists have strongly negative opinions.

A communist party that is liked by capitalists and disliked by communists is an odd beast, don't you think?

I prefer to judge people by their actions rather than their purported ideology. After all, as we've seen before, merely calling yourself something doesn't mean you are - cf the full name of the German Nazi party (National Socialist German Workers Party, to save you the trouble).

[Graham]

Originally Posted by danielf

Oddly enough, that is what the stance that many people in Asia take when it comes to human rights. Let's focus on developing the country first.

Whilst I agree that the free market will eventually cause the regime there to fall...

Human rights are a luxury that will come with the other luxuries wealth brings.

... would that it were so simple!

We have the wealth, so do the Americans, but the human rights are most certainly not a "luxury" that we can take for granted.
__________________

Originally Posted by Ramrod

We know it's irony graham.......but you are rather taking things to extremes there.....

Am I?

Did you ever hear of Chairman Mao's "Hundred Flowers" campaign?

Not long after the "Cultural Revolution" he invited all the intellectuals, teachers and those who had protested against the revolution to put forward their ideas for how things could be better.

Many did.

They were then rounded up and sent to "re-education" camps or simply shot.

Still sure I'm taking things too far?
__________________

Originally Posted by Chris W

I don't see a problem with coming down hard on criminals, and from what i have seen, the western media exagerates the mal treatment of people as well as the chinese media covers it up...

In China a "criminal" is anyone who the state doesn't like, be it Tibetan Monks who protest against the illegal occupation of their country and then get beaten up and jailed or practitioners of Falun Gong who are tortured and forced to denounced it as "an evil cult".

Violence is integral to China's campaign against Falun Gong and, as one government official commented, "practitioners who are not beaten generally do not abandon the group." The Washington Post and Amnesty International noted that in 2001 the central Chinese leadership--for the first time in its effort to purge China of Falun Gong--officially sanctioned the systematic use of violence against the group's practitioners. The Washington Post further reported that, according to government sources and Falun Gong practitioners, Chinese officials employ a variety of violent practices, such as beating detainees and shocking them with electric truncheons. Officials also torture detainees with "unbearable physical pressure." For instance, detainees are forced to squat on the floor for days at a time. In addition, Amnesty International has documented the use of electric shock batons to beat practitioners, and a device called the "Di Lao," in which a victim's wrists and feet are "shackled and linked together with crossed steel chains making it nearly impossible to walk or sit down."

Now I don't know where you get the idea of this being "exaggeration", because this is *officially sanctioned* government policy!

As to basic concepts of fair trials and justice, not to mention the presumption of innocence? Forget them. The Chinese leaders certainly do!

[Xaccers]

Talking of communism, can anyone name me a communist country which has been successful, not faking success like the USSR etc, but where people genually go without want, and are happy and not controlled by the goverment?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Talking of communism, can anyone name me a communist country which has been successful, not faking success like the USSR etc, but where people genually go without want, and are happy and not controlled by the goverment?

And a successful capitalist country while you're at it Of course, this depends on your measures of success.

[BBKing]

can anyone name me a communist country which has been successful

Bit difficult - Cuba is the one that springs to mind, in that it's stable and there doesn't seem to be much local opposition to the government. It's poor, true, but it's also banned from trading with an economic superpower 90 miles away, which hardly helps. It's hard to untangle the damage caused to countries by having an inefficient system against that caused by economic sanctions imposed because people don't like their governments.

Libya is ostensibly socialist (but in reality an Arab nationalist dictatorship) and standards of living have risen there markedly since sanctions were lifted. However, it's noteworthy that Gaddafi rejected Soviet-style communism as well as western capitalism.

Yugoslavia was quite successful as a country due to tourism, but it can't exactly be claimed as a paragon of peace and tranquility after the last 15 years.

So if you're going to run a country on communist lines, have plenty of natural resources, preferably ones that don't need much intellectual capacity or foreign technology to exploit (like sandy beaches or tobacco), use the fact that you can basically do what you like to build big schemes that stop people having time to realise they're not free, try not to **** the US off (this may be impossible), don't waste money on weapons, because you won't have much money to start with and you'll need it all to bribe people into staying calm and watching them to make sure they do.

I don't think many people on here are going to defend communism as the best way to run a country - I'm certainly not. It's a busted flush, and anti-communist reds-under-the-bed positions are likewise irrelevant these days.

[punky]

Pretty much what I already suspected, so thanx for that account Chris.

The country is becoming more and more capitalist, but I don't think it is going to bring down the regime. The worst part about China isn't the communism, it is the totalitarianism of it, something communism needs. China is proving that capitalism can thrive under either.

I am not a fan of China at all, and they are one of the countries in this planet I would love to see sorted out, if only some of the people here who complain about such countries would advocate actually doing something about it. I thought it was incredible they were chosen to hold the Olympics. Are all reporters going to be monitored as per usual?

[b]Edit:[b] Incidently, they didn't censor out this forum did they, because you have visited here whilst in China? Seems a bit odd, to censor the BBC and not us. You could follow a link from here to the BBC's news articles?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Graham

We have the wealth, so do the Americans, but the human rights are most certainly not a "luxury" that we can take for granted.

The argument was that, on balance, human rights (at home) will become more of an issue for people when they are relatively wealthy and well educated. Put simply, people will care more about their neighbour being imprisoned without trial when they don't have to worry where they will find their next meal.

I wasn't saying human rights are a luxury we can take for granted. Rather, it starts to matter more when other needs are met. (Mind you, that's little consolation for the person on the receiving end of abuse)

I'm not sure I like the implications, but I think there is some truth in it.

[Chris W]

Originally Posted by punky

[b]Edit:[b] Incidently, they didn't censor out this forum did they, because you have visited here whilst in China? Seems a bit odd, to censor the BBC and not us. You could follow a link from here to the BBC's news articles?

this forum was not censored... however attempted to following a link to the BBC just resulted in page cannot be displayed...

I do wonder how the censoring is done. I considered proxy servers, but disproved that one. I considered the fact that the whole country might just be one private network behind a firewall, but disproved that. I also considered that certain domain names are blocked, but disproved that as well... now confuddled!

[punky]

I guess through domain filtering. When you click a link here, the Chinese state ISP (I guess that's what it amounts to, even if it appears privately owned), it resolves the domain of the link, and if it is on a list of banned sites, its blocked. But then again, it doesn't explain why you could see the Beeb's front page.

What is the point anyway? If you can't read it from the BBC's own servers, you can just find a mirror somewhere, like on here, key quotes from articles are often quoted in posts. Seems a bit pointless here.

[Chris W]

Yeh it does seem a bit pointless... but I guess most Chinese people don't have the inclination to go digging around for news reported in other countries...

or perhaps the government censor everything and come after people who have been looking at news they aren't supposed to be able to see

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by andyl

Hmmmm, my brother works in China for a major western capitalist organisation, selling in to the domestic market. That's not really communism in action. The current administration is very tolerant of capitalist actions by its own and other citizens, albeit often with government involvement (or shareholdings if you prefer)

......and thats the way to bring them down!

Originally Posted by punky

I guess through domain filtering. When you click a link here, the Chinese state ISP (I guess that's what it amounts to, even if it appears privately owned), it resolves the domain of the link, and if it is on a list of banned sites, its blocked. But then again, it doesn't explain why you could see the Beeb's front page.

What is the point anyway? If you can't read it from the BBC's own servers, you can just find a mirror somewhere, like on here, key quotes from articles are often quoted in posts. Seems a bit pointless here.

Like you say primitive and, when it comes to it, a bit of a finger in a dam. Bit annoying though as I keep forgetting and sending Beeb links to my brother which he can't access. Wonder if he can access that seditious site, guardian.co.uk though