Posted on May 16, 2016
5
5
0
The question is "Were 'The Means' necessary to achieve 'The End' (and was 'The End' actually achieved)?".
When trying to answer the question, you have to make a real effort NOT to impose "non-
Chinese" ethics/values on the situation.
I suspect that, for the average Chinese (who actually thinks about "The Cultural Revolution" at all) the answer to the question would be "Terrible things were done and mistakes were made BUT look at us now. No longer are we a poor, backward, unheeded, quasi-colony answering to the beck and call of the yangguizi."
When trying to answer the question, you have to make a real effort NOT to impose "non-
Chinese" ethics/values on the situation.
I suspect that, for the average Chinese (who actually thinks about "The Cultural Revolution" at all) the answer to the question would be "Terrible things were done and mistakes were made BUT look at us now. No longer are we a poor, backward, unheeded, quasi-colony answering to the beck and call of the yangguizi."
Suppressed records revealed 50 years after China’s Cultural Revolution
Posted from theglobeandmail.com
China
Society
People
Politics
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
1
1
0
good points but Im not sure I agree that they aren't poor and backward still. True they may feel they aren't but compared to other countries. they are.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
IMO. the real cultural revolution is taking place today, as the Chinese are becoming capitalist.
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
COL Ted Mc - Still not seeing the sign of Socialism, but the spread of Capitalism in what is commonly accepted as a Communist nation.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
MCPO Roger Collins - Master Chief; The "Social Structure" is "Socialist", the "Financial Structure" is (becoming more and more) "Capitalist".
One of the Provincial Treasurers for Canada "New Democratic Party" (formerly the "Cooperative Commonwealth Federation" [and generally regarded {quite correctly} as being "Socialist"]) was known for saying (and I'll have to paraphrase here) "There is nothing wrong with making a profit. It's what you do with that profit that makes the difference. AND if you don't make a profit there isn't anything left to do anything with so you have to start cooking the babies to make soup to feed the children.".
"Reducing services while at the same time reducing taxes." SOUNDS good, but all that that tends to do is to increase the number of people who cannot afford the cost of the services when they need them.
"Increasing services while at the same time holding taxes steady." SOUNDS good, but all that that tends to do is to reduce the amount of money available per service and that means (almost inevitably [and invariable where the services are PROVIDED {as opposed to "paid for"} by a government monopoly]) that the quality of the services available to those who don't have the means to pay for the services directly will decline.
Increasing expectations without increasing meeting those expectations tends to produce "Social Oscillation" between the various groups making those promises and the longer that those expectations are not met tends to increase the amplitude of those oscillations. Without damping, and with a great enough amplitude, those oscillations tend to produce social destruction.
One of the Provincial Treasurers for Canada "New Democratic Party" (formerly the "Cooperative Commonwealth Federation" [and generally regarded {quite correctly} as being "Socialist"]) was known for saying (and I'll have to paraphrase here) "There is nothing wrong with making a profit. It's what you do with that profit that makes the difference. AND if you don't make a profit there isn't anything left to do anything with so you have to start cooking the babies to make soup to feed the children.".
"Reducing services while at the same time reducing taxes." SOUNDS good, but all that that tends to do is to increase the number of people who cannot afford the cost of the services when they need them.
"Increasing services while at the same time holding taxes steady." SOUNDS good, but all that that tends to do is to reduce the amount of money available per service and that means (almost inevitably [and invariable where the services are PROVIDED {as opposed to "paid for"} by a government monopoly]) that the quality of the services available to those who don't have the means to pay for the services directly will decline.
Increasing expectations without increasing meeting those expectations tends to produce "Social Oscillation" between the various groups making those promises and the longer that those expectations are not met tends to increase the amplitude of those oscillations. Without damping, and with a great enough amplitude, those oscillations tend to produce social destruction.
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
COL Ted Mc - "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
Lots of words, but not much substantiation as to any type of socialism.
"China is a one-party state, with real power lying with the Chinese Communist party. The country is governed under the constitution of 1982 as amended, the fifth constitution since the accession of the Communists in 1949."
Lots of words, but not much substantiation as to any type of socialism.
"China is a one-party state, with real power lying with the Chinese Communist party. The country is governed under the constitution of 1982 as amended, the fifth constitution since the accession of the Communists in 1949."
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
MCPO Roger Collins - Master Chief; I presume that your definition relates to "Communism" and I would agree to it as far as the "economic theory" bit is concerned.
I'd be very careful about including the "political theory" bit in there since then a case can be made out that "In a 'Capitalist' country there should be NO regulation on the means of production, distribution, or exchange - since that is a core tenet of 'Communism'.". That would include eliminating all anti-trust and/or product safety and/or occupational health and safety and/or labor protection legislation and giving complete control over the means of production, distribution or exchange to the owners of them.
I'd be very careful about including the "political theory" bit in there since then a case can be made out that "In a 'Capitalist' country there should be NO regulation on the means of production, distribution, or exchange - since that is a core tenet of 'Communism'.". That would include eliminating all anti-trust and/or product safety and/or occupational health and safety and/or labor protection legislation and giving complete control over the means of production, distribution or exchange to the owners of them.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google