RoR: Forum

Interestingly, the free distribution of "The Epoch Time" has recently been dropped from our local Chinese supermarkets. Maybe it has something to do with these commentaries on CCP?

The paper always has strong ties with Falun Gong, a new cult religion (?), particularly hated by the mainland Chinese government. I myself hasn't looked into Falun Gong closely, and thus can't have any concrete opinion about it.

Nevertheless, their 9 parts commentaries on CCP appear largely correct in facts. But I must say that I haven't read everything yet. It totals 110 pages in Chinese and 176 pages in English!

Both my parents are members of CCP for nearly 50 years. I know it is in names only. Strangely, it never occurs to me to ask them whether they want to denounce the Party or not. I know exactly where they stand on things and why. And that's enough for me. I do solute those who take open stand against CCP. It takes courage.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 1/03, 3:26pm)

Post 1

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 5:46am

I asked one of my employees who is from China about the series of articles. He was already well aware of the series and, of course, he already knew the history. He doesn�t think the articles are significant and won�t be widely known in China except among Falun Gung. He sees communism as being dead as an ideology but party membership is still sought for personal advancement. Is that what you find Hong Zhang?

Post 2

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 7:54am

He doesn�t think the articles are significant and won�t be widely known in China except among Falun Gung.

That's true. I also agree that most Chinese people do know most of the history - although significant portion of the people still refuse to believe that the large scale death happened during the 1959-1961 famine . However, they usually interprate CCP's history in a different light. They consider CCP's atrocities either as a necessity to maintain its power or as some well-intended mistakes.

He sees communism as being dead as an ideology but party membership is still sought for personal advancement.

I think it is partially true. There are now many privately owned factories and companies and you shouldn't need Party membership to hold high posts there. Of course it is different if one goes to politics. There is also pressure on celebrities to join the party. During my parents time, Party membership meant a lot even to common people. But by the time of the 80s, the benefit of it was already not so clear. I and many of my peers never wanted to apply for the Party membership at the time - but the feelings might be mutual - we probably wouldn't be accepted even if we'd applied.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 1/04, 7:56am)

Post 3

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 9:52am

This article by James A. Dorn of Cato ends on a hopeful note.

"June 4, 2004
15 Years after Tiananmen
by James A. Dorn"
http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-04-04-2.html

" It may be that China has no choice but to open its capital markets and allow freedom of the press if it wants to become a major player in the global financial markets. The forces of globalization and the information revolution may be China's path to freedom. The continued shrinkage of the state sector will eventually make the CCP obsolete. Political reform will then be from the bottom-up, like economic reform. The state can then perform its legitimate role of protecting fundamental human rights and recognize private property as the bedrock of liberty. That is a vision Chinese liberals long for and one all the Chinese people deserve. "

Perhaps we will see the beginning of the end of ccp corruption? A free China in our lifetimes? I'm thinking about learning to speak Chinese. Anyone know of any good language CD's?

Post 4

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 7:26pm

The forces of globalization and the information revolution may be China's path to freedom.

I quite agree with this. But more will need to be done.

The continued shrinkage of the state sector will eventually make the CCP obsolete. Political reform will then be from the bottom-up, like economic reform.

I hope so although I am not entirely sure. I don't think CCP can survive a freer China. I am just looking forward to the day that the giant portrait of Chairman Mao will be taken off the Tiananmen gate.

Post 5

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 3:56am

I like the positive tone of CATO but it isn't automatic. If liberty and its accompanying prosperity were so attractive how do you explain the loss of 19th century liberalism by decent into 20th century barbarity? CATO believes that free trade cures all. But the opening of trade to Japan in the 19^th century didn�t guarantee a free society!

And how about the loss of freedom in our country (the USA)? Pragmatism doesn't guarantee expanding liberty.

Post 6

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 5:37pm

I was in China three times during 2004. I got to speak to ordinary educated people - middle class people I guess. I asked for their opinions on the Communist Party. In every case, the response was the same - they simply didn't believe in it. One guy, a journalist, stated his firm belief in free markets.

Another factor in the changes taking place was revealed in an interesting documentary with some "bohemian" artists and musicians from Shanghai. One was a young lady who has become "infamous" for her explicit sexual novels. Another was a young guitarist in an alternative band.

They both said that the Chinese want no more revolution - and that they are prepared to be patient, and wait for the old guard to die off. As far as they were concerned, they could do what they wanted - except openly criticise the political leadership.

What is really interesting about China is how they have moved away from Communism via the economic route. Russia opted for the political route. I think the results speak for themselves.

As to learning Mandarin. I purchased a good beginner course from Pimsleur - which uses just listening and repeating (no books) - and is based on the fact that we learn a language (as young children) by listening only.

I found it hard at first, but by repetition I am now getting the hang of it - and a sense of satisfaction that comes with it.

Post 7

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 9:14pm

David,

"As to learning Mandarin. I purchased a good beginner course from Pimsleur - which uses just listening and repeating (no books) - and is based on the fact that we learn a language (as young children) by listening only."

Thanks for the recommendation!

Post 8

Thursday, January 6, 2005 - 7:54am

Thanks, David, that�s very helpful. I wonder what people outside the cities think. I don�t worry about a Marxist revival in China. I�m more worried about some new type of statism of a nationalist variety with or without Communist packaging. But so far I'm hopeful for continued progress.

Post 9

Thursday, January 6, 2005 - 10:18am

I would agree that the ideology of Communism is mostly dead in China, but the practice has not. CCP still hold controls of all media (TV, newspaper, publication, etc), polices, jurisdiction offices (I think there are some of those now), and of course the armed force. Some of you may not know that, guns or even sharp knives are not allow to be owned by individuals. I can't even imagine what would happen if Chinese people could freely own weapons as it is in US. CCP government probably would have been turned over long time ago.

I also believe CCP will eventually die out - but I don't think they will die quietly. There are still volcanoes out there that are been severely repressed. A few years ago my father and I talked about the China's famine during 1959-1961 again. Six people in his family including his own father and three brothers had died of starvation in 59. However many Mainland Chinese and other people in the world are still ignorant of or don't believe that those things have happened. I said to him that there should be some sort of museums and monuments to commemorate the death of those most innocent of common Chinese people, just like what have been done with the Holocaust victims. My father immediately told me "Don't be so naive. The government will crumble of they do so". CCP also have not change their verdict on 1989 Tiananman Square movement. I think they are afraid to open those sensitive vents, no matter how small they are, for fear of the full exposure of all their previous evil deeds.

Post 10

Thursday, January 6, 2005 - 4:07pm

Mike: if it's of any help, I purchased my Mandarin course from the LingoShop - http://www.lingoshop.com/ - which offers Pimsleur courses at a steep discount.
(Edited by David MacGregor on 1/06, 4:18pm)

Post 11

Thursday, January 6, 2005 - 4:17pm

Yes, of course, the Communist Party controls all essential leverage points - although not private communications via the internet. However, not being able to own a gun is hardly unique to that country.

On the other hand, from my observations, you don't get pulled over for not wearing a seat belt. Helmets for bicycle riders have not been heard of. Speed limits (at least in Chongqing, where I was twice) seem either to not exist, or are not enforced. Street merchants appear to set up shop at will - without the need for a license. Smokers appear to be free to smoke anywhere. Business people I spoke to said they pay no tax. And although Beijing has a visible army presence - Chongqing (greater area 33 million people) had hardly any authority figures in sight. In two weeks, I only saw two police cars. Mind you, you have to watch out for cars driving with no headlights at night!

And finally, getting into the country was actually a more tolerable experience than getting into the USA :-)
(Edited by David MacGregor on 1/06, 4:19pm)

Post 12

Thursday, January 6, 2005 - 6:54pm

David,

When you say "On the other hand,...etc. etc" do you imply that those are good things or bad?

Post 13

Thursday, January 6, 2005 - 8:30pm

Zhang: what I meant was that many minor activities are not apparently banned in China - politically correct stuff, like being forced to wear helmets and seat belts, being prevented from smoking, arbitrary speed limits etc.

In the west there has been a creeping authoritarian impulse to ban all sorts of actions which should be up to individuals to choose or not. While I certainly think it is wise to wear a seat belt, I certainly don't think such a choice has anything to do with the state. But of course, in socialist states, where accidents are a drain on the public purse - such nanny-statism is common.

As to smoking - in certain parts of the world (like in New Zealand where I have just spent Christmas) it is now prohibited to smoke in so-called "public" places (restaurants, bars etc.) - completely ignoring and overriding the property rights of the respective owners.

So my comments were related to what I saw as a lack of such prohibitions.

Post 14

Friday, January 7, 2005 - 8:44am

David,

I just realized that you wrote an article about China being "A most unlikely freedom heaven", describing in more detail of what you've observed in China. I was asked sometime ago to comment on your article based on my own experience. Unfortunately I didn't keep a copy of those very informal comments, and it would be silly to rewrite it.

You are quite right that there is utterly lack of government regulations in many "minor" things. Common Chinese people are basically left to fend for themselves in their daily lives. But the "peace and safety" impression that you got is not true. The traffic accidents and mortality rates are extremely high. The average car speed in the city is probably 10-15km/hr because of chaos and lack of regulation. Burglars are frequent and they rarely got caught. Just look at the every home that is guarded with heavy iron doors and windows, you should get a sense of how safe the society is. Business scams are also very common and extremely easy to set up. Victims have nowhere to go to get justice. Without the basic laws, the society is largely operated on bribery, exchange of favors, and power plays, or �pulls�, a word I learnt from �Atlas Shrugged�. I certainly won�t be able to survive in that jungle. It is so much easier to live in US with all those regulations. ;-)

I would think that the regulation of traffic and law enforcements are the most basic things that a minimumistic government should be doing. I don�t know why you guys always like to pick on seat belt and helmet laws. I had friends who were killed in car accidents because they didn�t wear seat belt. I myself had involved in a rollover car accident and came out without a scratch because I did wear my seat belt. I have no problem for people getting fined for their stupidity � it is a well intended and friendly gesture. Among all other government regulations, I�d think that seat-belt law must be one of the most harmless ones.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 1/07, 8:49am)

Post 15

Saturday, January 8, 2005 - 12:03pm

Hong,

You wrote: "I would think that the regulation of traffic and law enforcements are the most basic things that a minimumistic government should be doing. I don�t know why you guys always like to pick on seat belt and helmet laws. I had friends who were killed in car accidents because they didn�t wear seat belt. I myself had involved in a rollover car accident and came out without a scratch because I did wear my seat belt. I have no problem for people getting fined for their stupidity � it is a well intended and friendly gesture. Among all other government regulations, I�d think that seat-belt law must be one of the most harmless ones."

As one of the guys who picks on seat belt and helmet laws I think it is appropriate for me to reply. I believe in a strong separation between public business and private business. I do not think it is the governments business to force me to do things like wear a seat belt or a helmet or a thousand other things "for my own good". I have a functional brain and the desire to live a long life. I get personal satisfaction out of making the decisions about the things I do to prolong and enrich my own life. That aside, interference by the government in matters such as these invariable obfuscates the issue. There are arguments about seat belt laws and helmet laws that give results that are at odds with the published government results. For instance, one argument against seat belt laws is that because of the false sense of security people get from wearing seat belts they drive more recklessly and therefore are in more accidents, resulting in more death and injury. And for helmet laws: the physics of forces applied to the head with a helmet on in some cases causes greater injury to the brain due to the sheer forces. The true story will never be known once the laws are in place because government agencies collect only the data that supports their point of view. It is not in anyone else's interest to collect data. A better way to handle getting people to make intelligent decisions about these things is in the private sector. Insurance companies could gather data and set their premiums on the results. Beyond these examples there is a principle involved. If I'm not harming others, no one has the right to tell me what to do. I own my own life. My decision about what's good for me is supreme. You may think that something I do is stupid, but you have no right to force me to do anything different. The fact that some people say "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" gives them no more right than any other group or individual to override my personal decisions about my own life. You are right, that seat belt laws are fairly innocuous. But by the same principle of protecting people from their own bad judgement the government could outlaw any dangerous sports, such as rock climbing, or outlaw eating junk food. The principle of separating our private lives from government interference is like a fence that separates us from our government neighbors. An American saying:

"Good fences make good neighbors"

I see a hole in the fence I just naturally want to mend it.

also:

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

Respectfully,
Mike Erickson

Post 16

Sunday, January 9, 2005 - 3:00pm

Hong: (I should have realised you'd swap your name order on a forum like this) - you said: "I�d�think that seat-belt law must be one of the most harmless ones."

Like Mike, I must disagree.

It is the principle that is important. It may appear "harmless" - but the principle is far from harmless. It's my body, my life. I am the one who should make such decisions. Next on the list will be compulsion as regards what I eat - and I'm not joking.

As for crime - the reality is that in the west, if your house is broken into, you are unlikely to ever see your possessions again - and, just as you say happens in China, the police put it very low on their priorities.

You said: "But the "peace and safety" impression that you got is not true. The traffic accidents and mortality rates are extremely high."

That may be true of accidents - but I know how I felt, and I know how I observed others. I didn't fear for my personal safety (i.e. being attacked by others) while walking around the streets. As for "safety" regards bad driving - that is another matter, not a criminal one.

I've travelled extensively around the world - and you get a feeling for the level of aggression in a place. I can tell you in all honesty, there is more latent aggression (late at night) on the streets of Auckland, New Zealand - than in either Beijing or Chongqing - according to my own experience.

Yes, of course there is rampant corruption - and I'm not making any excuses for that.

(Edited by David MacGregor on 1/09, 3:02pm)

Post 17

Sunday, January 9, 2005 - 6:26pm

It is the principle that is important.

David, you and Mike really have me ponding on this statement. I haven't thought through this yet, but I am in general suspicious of any overriding principles.

I now understand better what you mean by your feeling of "peace and safety" and will not argue about it. Your are quite a keen observer.

Post 18

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 6:10am