VIVA CHINA ! Politics and governments

A country where the governement is allowed to kill some people, even some prisoneers, should not be called communist

I agry with you. But they do not. The majority of Chineese people feel good with there governement. So, we should not tell them that there is something better.

Well, for me, URSS, Cuba, North korea and cambodge can't be called communist. They are some dictatures. My definition of "communism" take place in a democratie. Communism is the power given to the whole population, not to some military chiefs, or to some people that have never seen some poor people...
For me, it is just unfair to see that 40 headmaster of the "cac 40" firms (the best 40 french firms) earned 160 Millions euros in one year, when a lot of people are dying in coldness, or when some girls have to sell there body to pay there study. I guess you understand what i mean.
I'm thinking that we could share all this money. It's not fair

"What is a Communard? One that has yearnings

For equal division of unequal earnings,

Idler, or bungler, or both, he is willing

To fork out his penny and pocket your shilling." quote from 'The Grand Promenade', author unknown

All totally free economies are generally predicted to go towards an M shaped society with a very large portion of the population poor and a small percentile exceedingly rich. This is a problem that free economies face. While communism seems like a pretty option, the means and goal behind communism is still equal dispension of wealth. People don't like to work under such conditions, because they'll be fed anyway, so why not let others do the hard work while we just 'pretend' to work and earn our equal stipends? Society would not improve through this system. It is a flawed philosophy. A better option would be a free market government that also stresses socialism. Communism is only one form of socialism, and a rather extreme, simplistic one at that. Perhaps, French-touch, you could change your support for more socialism rather than straight out communism. I believe that countries like Finland are doing quite well under such systems (though their sharing culture also has something to do with it as well).
Democratic communism is an interesting option. When free economy has come to full bloom, most of the population will be poor, so there will be a large support for democratic communism. However, if the whole population is still educated at least to high school standards, it would still choose socialist inclined democracies rather than communism. Because all in all, the driving force behind our thriving civil society is the free market. So one might say that it is in the rich people's interests to keep a certain standard of living for the whole population - education and food. Because without education and sustainence, people will revert to radical socialism and start violently attacking the rich.
However, we are sidetracking. China is no longer under communist ideals. Rather, it has taken out all the ideals of communism (equal dispension) and replaced it with all the flaws, and wealth of free economy. This makes a great many Chinese people happy, as their wealth is growing in proportions which were unknown to them twenty years ago. These are the ones who are singing their country's praises on international forums. However, this still excludes the people who are kicked down the ladder of free economy - the poor onion farmers whose lands are sequestered, the AIDS villages which are hushed up, the rural areas where educational resources are still scarce. These people do not have a voice in the international forum because they either don't have good english resources, or their advocates (lawyers, the media) are silenced.
While taking out all the good of communism, China retains all the bad of communism. Mainly, being an authoritarian country where the opinions of the minority are silenced. No Chinese journalist has joined the International Federation of Journalists (www.ifj.org), because there is no media freedom there. All NPOs in China are regulated by the government, so there are technically no NGOs in China.

For equal division of unequal earnings,

Idler, or bungler, or both, he is willing

To fork out his penny and pocket your shilling." quote from 'The Grand Promenade', author unknown

All totally free economies are generally predicted to go towards an M shaped society with a very large portion of the population poor and a small percentile exceedingly rich. This is a problem that free economies face. While communism seems like a pretty option, the means and goal behind communism is still equal dispension of wealth. People don't like to work under such conditions, because they'll be fed anyway, so why not let others do the hard work while we just 'pretend' to work and earn our equal stipends? Society would not improve through this system. It is a flawed philosophy. A better option would be a free market government that also stresses socialism. Communism is only one form of socialism, and a rather extreme, simplistic one at that. Perhaps, French-touch, you could change your support for more socialism rather than straight out communism. I believe that countries like Finland are doing quite well under such systems (though their sharing culture also has something to do with it as well).
Democratic communism is an interesting option. When free economy has come to full bloom, most of the population will be poor, so there will be a large support for democratic communism. However, if the whole population is still educated at least to high school standards, it would still choose socialist inclined democracies rather than communism. Because all in all, the driving force behind our thriving civil society is the free market. So one might say that it is in the rich people's interests to keep a certain standard of living for the whole population - education and food. Because without education and sustainence, people will revert to radical socialism and start violently attacking the rich.
However, we are sidetracking. China is no longer under communist ideals. Rather, it has taken out all the ideals of communism (equal dispension) and replaced it with all the flaws, and wealth of free economy. This makes a great many Chinese people happy, as their wealth is growing in proportions which were unknown to them twenty years ago. These are the ones who are singing their country's praises on international forums. However, this still excludes the people who are kicked down the ladder of free economy - the poor onion farmers whose lands are sequestered, the AIDS villages which are hushed up, the rural areas where educational resources are still scarce. These people do not have a voice in the international forum because they either don't have good english resources, or their advocates (lawyers, the media) are silenced.
While taking out all the good of communism, China retains all the bad of communism. Mainly, being an authoritarian country where the opinions of the minority are silenced. No Chinese journalist has joined the International Federation of Journalists (www.ifj.org), because there is no media freedom there. All NPOs in China are regulated by the government, so there are technically no NGOs in China.

I'm totaly okay with you about china. It retains all the bad.

But for me that's is not a fact. Communism has not to become violent and a dictature. Today, communism is different than 50 years ago. My example comes from my country, France. There are dirrefent communist parties. But at lot of them don't want to destroy the liberal economy. THen want a stronger governement, more public stuff and more democtratie. They don't want of a president that have more power than everybody. When i say it I mean that today, communism comes with democratie, freedom and equality.

When you spoke about the economic limit of the communism. "People don't like to work under such conditions, because they'll be fed anyway, so why not let others do the hard work while we just 'pretend' to work and earn our equal stipends?"
I agree, but it could be work with everybody had a different way of thinking. If working for the community is more important than working for himself, there communism could work. Because you don't work to become richer, but to help the community.
The problem is that today, a lot of people just want to earn money, to become richer and richer. The system we use already works because a lot of poor people think that they could become rich... But today they can't. Rich people are richer, there children will be the rich people of tomorow.... I think that the way we are using won't work everytime. One day it will change. Change with keeping the best (the democratie, freedom...) and takin the best of socialism-communism (the one of today).

I hope you understood me, i'm tired it's late 😃 Sorry, my english could be better than now..
yawn flowers

Just a question, French Touch, Wouldn't you like to be richer than now?
I would, and I think everyone would... So, when you say that : "Because you don't work to become richer, but to help the community", to get this result, everything have to change: mentalities, economical system, technologies (everyone wants his I-Pod...).
Well i don't manage to say clearly what i want to say ( it's too late for me) but I can say it like that:
Humans suck so that's impossible

I think you can be rich without exploit anybody. I would like to be richer, but not as much. For me, nobody should win more than between 5 000 and 10 000 Euros a month. Or it would become Unfair. And I think that it is possible, to buy without exploit. And we have to help this way.

I agree when you say that we have to change the mentalities, it's not a real problem. I think it will change one day, with seeing poverty growing up.

I think you can be rich without exploit anybody. I would like to be richer, but not as much. For me, nobody should win more than between 5 000 and 10 000 Euros a month. Or it would become Unfair. And I think that it is possible, to buy without exploit. And we have to help this way.

I agree when you say that we have to change the mentalities, it's not a real problem. I think it will change one day, with seeing poverty growing up.

Yeah, I think we should call this Socialism, rather than Communism. But, it's just a term...much depends on the definition.
But, French-Touch, are you sure that you want to set a max. limit of earnings? That's kinda restricting, don't you think? I think that a lot depends on mentality...and, it has to come from within.
Vandien, I do think that there are people, who don't want to be rich...yes, people want to have more things, but it needn't be more than necessary (at the basic and/or comfort level). Have what you want, not more than you want, like hoarding. (Saving is different.)
Moniquechang, (I'm just ignorant...I want to know your opinions...sorry if they seem rude. I just can't seem to get them right now.) when the Free economy has "come to a full bloom", will a majority be poor? Is that 'economic development'?
Ok..now, I have this question for everyone, where does this "Socialism/Democratic Communism/Modern Communism/whatever you want to call it" fits in with Globalisation, Privatisation and Liberalisation?
And, I have another question: Do I have to put this question in another new topic cos it moves away (?) from this topic?

Yea, you are right, we shouldn't have to set a law. People shouldn't like earning billions when some people need some food. Materialims isn't a good way for the humanity.

Globalisation is a problem when it is done like today. But you can do it different. Mondialisation can help some poor country to become democratic and richer (as every country should be).
Privatisation is, for me, the biggest problem. Well we need some public things. Like transports, energy, school, health, culture, environment... Every firms of these secotrs should belng to the whole country. But the little private firms, for example the plumbers, could exist in a system like you said (We should choose a word together 😃).
Liberalisation... Of the economy, it is like privatisation, so it's a problem. Now liberalisation of politics, of newspaper of culture and so, is important and could exist in this system

Yes, Globalization has helped a lot. It's bad that I studied only about the pros of Globalization in my Economics text. What do you think should be changed in Globalization, French-touch?
But, the Public sectors need to revamped completely...except the most important ones in India, they suck!!! I tell you...The BSNL, the Public telecom sector in India, does provide Internet connections, Phone and cell phone network at the cheapest rates possible, but, I have problems with it, for like, half the time...it can even work properly for less than 2 days in a week...no proper customer service...no quality...but, it can also work properly for sometime. Then, it just goes dead for sometime. I need to pay 'something' to the man, who repairs the connections. The money for investment is eaten by the Politicians and Govt. officials. They employ the worst kind of equipments and officials possible. The "Senior" Engineer, who came to setup our internet connection, didn't know a DAMN thing about computers (he couldn't even hold my mouse properly..but boasted all about BSNL to us) or internet, while, the "Junior" Engineer was doing all the work! This is just one example! Corruption is rampant in Public sectors! So, something MUST be done about it.
Yeah, we must work on the 'nomenclature'! 😉

The only people that are communists are the people who haven`t lived in a communist country. There is absolutely no success story about communist systems.
Ask anyone from the Ex-USSR, Eastern Europe, Cuba, etc what they think about communism, and what was the quality of life under communist rule.
By the way, China is not really communist anymore, for a long time.

Quality of life in Cuba is not bad. Free hospital and schools, nobody die because he need food....When you are a communist in cuba, you do not have a bad life.
For me, communism should comes with democtraty and there must be different polotical ways. In this way, communism could work. At the moment we have never seen a democratic communism. But it doesn't mean that communism and democtraty can't work together

Quality of life in Cuba is not bad. Free hospital and schools, nobody die because he need food....When you are a communist in cuba, you do not have a bad life.
For me, communism should comes with democtraty and there must be different polotical ways. In this way, communism could work. At the moment we have never seen a democratic communism. But it doesn't mean that communism and democtraty can't work together

If you live in a democratic community and by hard work can earn more than your neighbors who don't work, would you want to split your earnings with them?

There's no freedom in China in Politics. But there's freedom in economics and academics. So, unless there's political freedom, China's a Communist country.

Quality of life in Cuba is not bad. Free hospital and schools, nobody die because he need food....When you are a communist in cuba, you do not have a bad life.
For me, communism should comes with democtraty and there must be different polotical ways. In this way, communism could work. At the moment we have never seen a democratic communism. But it doesn't mean that communism and democtraty can't work together

If you live in a democratic community and by hard work can earn more than your neighbors who don't work, would you want to split your earnings with them?

I would split my earnings with people who work hard to earn nothing. today you can't say that in our democratic system, work is payed. That is not true. Poverty is not a way of life. People you are talking about are not a lot. That's a capitalist argument
I wouldn't like earning more than 7 000 euros/month. That's already enough. I would give the rest to the society.

But communism would be perfect if everybody was communist. Cause everybody would work hard for the community.

Let's make a new country 😃

I think that in theory Communism isn't a bad thing, the main problem is when it is put into practice. We can only dream of living in a classless society where everyone is equal, because our human nature won't allow it to be reality. We're too motivated by greed and our own self-interest to let it happen.

Those who are placed in charge will always take advantage of the people they represent. "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely". It's a no-win situation because I think the majority of people need a leader or someone to follow.

In our society we need so many different people to maintain the living standards we have become accustomed to. Would people really be willing to have equal pay, even if they felt they contributed more to society than others? Not everybody is going to work hard and everyone has different abilities. We're all so different that I don't think any of us will ever be equal.

That depend what you call equal. If the salaries were between 2000 and 1000 e.uro/month. Would'nt the difference be enough?

Equality's too difficult to achieve and we won't have equal pay/opportunities/rights. We have free will which allows us to do what we want and as humans we take advantage of each other. If we only have one chance with life then most people aren't going to want to slave away to provide a better life for other people. They want the best for themselves and the people they care about. The system's too easy to corrupt.

And that is that.
All human are not like you say, i guess I am not.

I'd like to think that I was different from that too, but I'm not so sure.

This song sums up how I tend to feel about society in general. I love the lyrics i particular. [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVQEsKDcl2A]Eddie Vedder - Society[/url]