Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as “Taiwan” or “Free China”/”Democratic China” is a democratic country.
But People’s Republic of China (PRC), commonly known as “China”, “Communist China” or “Red China” is NOT a democratic China.
China effectively pursued a democracy from 1912–1949 under Republic of China, but due to lost of Chinese civil war to the communist forces, Republic of China was forced to evacuate and relocate to Taiwan on Dec 1949. Therefore, today, Republic of China on Taiwan is a democracy.
After 1949, the Chinese Communist Party established the Peoples’ Republic of China (PRC) on mainland China. The Chinese Communist destroyed the democratic institution established by Republic of China (ROC) on mainland China after 1949, as Mao Zedong (founder of PRC) wanted to establish a communist state (People’s Republic of China - PRC) with the political ideology of pursuing communism in China. Thus, from 1949 onwards, “China” is not a democratic country.
But the show me where x works is the statist equivalent of “who will pick the cotton”
Its actually called:giveme an example instead of making unfounded claims.
Conservatives and Progressives alike are incapable to even imagine actual progress.
Maybe government could work if we followed Jefferson’s advice, but we don’t and it doesn’t.
Goverment does not work at all? I guess the utopian ideal is Medieval Iceland or Pre-colonial Pennsylvania??? LOL
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure” - Jefferson
Things have changed significantly since pre-2000 China can’t really be said to be communist today. You also can’t say that they are completely democratic either. They don’t neatly fit into a particular box now having carved their own way. I think it is really interesting to see the Western narrative about China when most people don’t understand it and have never been.
China is a much bigger competitor and threat to western economic prosperity than most would want to acknowledge. Steve Bannon did though he understood that the US might not stay on top much longer! Many people have been waiting for their authoritarian-socialist-capitalism to fall on its face and that hasn’t happened and actually doesn’t look likely to. The next argument that pops up once people acknowledge that they are actually doing well is that it is only because they copy other people’s technology and produce poor quality products both of which used to be true but not today.
The reasons why “China” is not a democratic country now.
*no legal way exists for peaceful removal of the government;
*there is no legal parliamentary opposition, a single political party runs in the elections, there are a few additional parties but they have no legal way to grab power, they operate under the direct supervision of the ruling party;
*there is considerable terror (imprisonment of political opposition, labour camps);
*there are no organizations established for fullfilling the role of “checks and balances”, the police and the judiciary system is directly controlled by the ruling political party;
*the ruling political party appoints its own people for every important position;
*civil resistance against the government is illegal;
*decisions are made without or merely with formal involvement of the affected groups;
*there is no freedom of press, the media is under direct control of the ruling political party;
*personal freedom (freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of movement, religious freedom, freedom of family planning) is severely restricted in many respects.
I am not arguing that they are democratic they have elections for some positions and as you say there is no way for removal of the government. What I am saying is that the characterisation that they are evil communists doesn’t bear scrutiny either!
Oh yeah,ok gotcha. Yeah the black and white bad/good dichotomy that many posters exhibit is beyond juvenile for sure
So you read Human Action and you are ready to have this conversation cause your posts certainly seem like you have no interest. I have to answer your garbage despite knowing your stupid idealogy.
I gave you examples and things would be a lot easier to achieve now.
It’s just the truth. Malthusian Theory being the perfect example and look how dangerous government became because some moron, even some Presidents believed the dumb theory and promoted eugenics programs.
No, it doesn’t. We could do a lot better without it.
It comes down to the fact that I strongly believe in the non-aggression principal and you are totally fine with using violence to achieve your goals. I am an individualist, you are a collectivist. I think I need to get my own house in order before I can help others, you are fine with taking from others to achieve your goals.
I understand your backwards, immoral ideology, it was fed down my throat in the indoctrination / sorting system they call school. You seem like you feel you can argue with me without having a basic understanding of where I am coming from.
You have no understanding of anything I have written,you repeat your pre-conceived notions and do not have the ability to understand anything else,you are married to your definitions of the labels you are obsessed with.
I’d say that the main misconceptions are these:
“Socialism leads to poverty”. No it doesn’t. If we take a look at the USSR we can easily see otherwise. At the beginning of the 20th Century Russia was nothing more than a big feudal State. Industry was scarce in comparison with agriculture. The latter was organised pretty much like in medieval times. Economic development was null. However, 50 years after the Russian Revolution, the USSR (taking into account the survival to 2nd World War), was competing against the US in the space race (and it succeeded: first satellite in space, first man in space, first woman in space, first space-walk…). Have you ever seen Botswana launching a satellite? On the other hand, capitalism does make countries richer… and some others poorer. Most of the countries in our capitalist world are labelled as developing countries or Third World.
“Socialism means everybody has the same income regardless how hard they work”. No it doesn’t. Socialism seeks to build a system in which exploitation doesn’t exist. This eventually means that in a socialist transition workers would be earning more and the rich propietaries would be earning less. In socialism earnings come from working. If you don’t work, you don’t get paid. If you work more, you get paid more. If you work in a job which requires special skills, you get paid more. On the other hand, in capitalism some rich stock brokers can sleep all day and earn hundreds of thousands dollars just with an algorithm running on a computer by his bed. Not very hard work there.
“Socialism wants to take away our private property”. No it doesn’t. Socialism, to achieve the last point (ending with exploitation) needs to abolish private property of means of production. Not private property of your house, your iPhone or your car.
Read Socialism already? No, you haven’t. Even calling the fire department socialist shows you are a complete moron…
Yes, socialism does lead to poverty. No, socialism means the ruling class ends up with the good life while the rest of us beg for food.
I’m done with you, you have no morals, you are completely fine with using violence to achieve your goals.
You really have very little reading comprehension (I am talking about Democratic Socialism) and are a professional cherry picker.
To a Democratic Socialist, sharing the wealth means pooling tax money together to design social programs that benefit ALL citizens of that country, city, state, etc.
The fire and police departments are both excellent examples of Democratic Socialism in America. Rather than leaving each individual responsible for protecting their own home from fire, everyone pools their money together, through taxes, to maintain a fire and police department. It’s operated under a non-profit status, and yes, your tax dollars pay for putting out other people’s fires. It would almost seem absurd to think of some corporation profiting from putting out fires. But it’s more efficient and far less expensive to have government run fire departments funded by tax dollars.
Similarly, public education is another social program in the USA. It benefits all of us to have a taxpayer supported, publicly run education system. Unfortunately, in America, the public education system ends with high school. Most of Europe now provides low cost or free college education for their citizens. This is because their citizens understand that an educated society is a safer, more productive and more prosperous society. Living in such a society, everyone benefits from public education.
You just don’t get it. I know you are talking about Democratic Socialism which is why I say you are morally bankrupt. There is no reason for he fire department to be a social function. The police are horrible. They have a monopoly on force and are far closer to the brownshirts or the SS then the Peace Officer of the past
Public education is an abysmal failure. Look at the number of public school students that need remedial classes. Why are these kids getting a diploma if they think 2+2 is jello? Everything the government has touch, has gone to shit. Healthcare and Medicine in general, education, the move to war, the fed and its failure on its original charter, the racists ponzi sheme called social security.
Why is it ok for them to take my money to pay for things that I don’t want and don’t use? I know when I have seconds, the police are minutes behind. I know I do not want to send my children to public schools. I do not want to pay for wars, I do not want to pay for eugenics programs. I do not want to pay for a study that tries to understand why coffee spills when you walk. I don’t want to spend money to see if selfies make us happier.
What happens if I refuse to pay for these things? Violence against me and my family and my dog is almost guaranteed to be shot. I thought I was supposed to be free. You are perfectly fine with that violence, cause you are a Marxist and believe the ends justify the means. Morally bankrupt!
“Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”
― Frédéric Bastiat
I am sure you have never read Bastiat either though. Try it, its an easy read. The Law.
EXAMPLE American style capitalistic program for college: If you pay (average) $20,000 annually for four years of college, that will total $80,000 + interest for student loans. The interest you would owe could easily total or exceed the $80,000 you originally borrowed, which means your degree could cost in excess of $100,000.
EXAMPLE European style social program for college: Your college classes are paid for through government taxes. When you graduate from that college and begin your career, you also start paying an extra tax for fellow citizens to attend college.
Question – You might be thinking how is that fair? If you’re no longer attending college, why would you want to help everyone else pay for their college degree?
Answer – Every working citizen pays a tax that is equivalent to say, $20 monthly. If you work for 40 years and then retire, you will have paid $9,600 into the Social college program. So you could say that your degree ends up costing only $9,600. When everyone pools their money together and the program is non-profit, the price goes down tremendously. This allows you to keep more of your hard earned cash!
Health care is another example: If your employer does not provide health insurance, you must purchase a policy independently. The cost will be thousands of dollars annually, in addition to deductible and co-pays.
In Holland, an individual will pay around $35 monthly, period. Everyone pays into the system and this helps reduce the price for everyone, so they get to keep more of their hard earned cash.
In the United States we are told and frequently reminded that anything run by the government is bad and that everything should be operated by for-profit companies. Of course, with for-profit entities the cost to the consumer is much higher because they have corporate executives who expect compensation packages of tens of millions of dollars and shareholders who expect to be paid dividends, and so on.
This (and more) pushes up the price of everything, with much more money going to the already rich and powerful, which in turn, leaves the middle class with less spending money and creates greater class separation.
This economic framework makes it much more difficult for average Joes to “lift themselves up by their bootstraps” and raise themselves to a higher economic standing.
So next time you hear the word “socialism” and “spreading the wealth” in the same breath, understand that this is a serious misconception.
Social programs require tax money and your taxes may be higher. But as you can see everyone benefits because other costs go down and, in the long run, you get to keep more of your hard earned cash!
Democratic Socialism does NOT mean taking from the rich and giving to the poor. It works to benefit everyone so the rich can no longer take advantage of the poor and middle class.
I stopped reading right there.
That’s no surprise,none at all. You and the label obsession again
No, its because you are unable to follow along. US Capitalism is not Capitalism in the sense I am talking about. I will use a different term. Since you are an expert on economics I am sure you have also read Adam Smith, so lets use his term. “The obvious and simple system of natural liberty.”.
This system requires sound money, we don’t have that.
This system requires you to actually own your property, we do not have that.
This system requires a limited government, we do not have that.
Capitalism requires the possibility for any person or any business to fail, we do not have that. We help our big companies (pharma, banking, insurance companies) squeeze out middle and small companies.
We both know the US system is greatly flawed. You just think we need a lot more government to fix it and I think we need a lot less. Most in the US do not want the European or Canadian model, if they did, they would move there.’
If you really want to discuss the US failed system versus the European Failed System, you need to debate someone else. Find someone that was a big fan of GW Bush, Obama, or Clinton if Obama was too left for you. Maybe find a fan of Mussolini, cause our corporatism and endless wars are closer to his ideals.
Since I know where you are coming from, it would only be fair if you really want to discuss this with me, for you to at least read one of the sources I have given you before assuming you know anything about me.
And maybe you are right that I am too hung up on the labels but that is just because I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you knew what those labels mean. To me government is force and violence… It is an evil and no longer a necessary one.
What a pathetic dweeb lol