undefined | Better HN

0 pointskurthr5y ago0 comments

Hmmm... I'd agree that many people in the west don't have much of an idea how China or the CCP work. Calling them communist is pretty hilarious even if the word is in their name. The country has grown into it's own new empire much more like those of old, I think shaped by the expectations and education of its people.

I'd also agree that because many of China's educated upper class (political and economic) have been schooled or at least traveled or met foreigners from the US or other democracies, they understand many of the mechanics. However, I would completely disagree that even a bare majority of Chinese have much conception at all how western politics work. Even those who are educated in the US/Europe rarely understand politics except at a single point in time.

I would count myself as one who has a fair knowledge of politics and business in China having spent almost 2 decades traveling and working with businesses there. I have some understanding of their history, socialization and education, as well as, business practices. What I can say is that they are very different depending on where you are (Shenzhen/HK vs Shanghai vs Beijing vs Chongqing). They speak differently, they live differently, and they do business differently. Also, China's politico-economic environment has changed very significantly in the past 20 years often with political leaders. and Xi has been one of the more rapid/dramatic changes.

I've learned that I do not understand the inner workings of China/CCP... even the workings of the US political system over the last 4 years border on incomprehensible. I would say that some of the business people I have seen most taken advantage of are Chinese expatriates who invested back into their homes and had relatively large businesses taken from them, because they thought they understood - align your interests carefully with someone who is on the ground or even family can take everything (this wasn't a single instance).

0 comments

hhjinks5y ago

>Calling them communist is pretty hilarious even if the word is in their name

Why? China was clearly a communist project, and this is what they became. Why is the end result we see in reality less valid than the theory?

kurthrOP5y ago

For the same reason we don't refer to Hitler as a socialist. There are still places with actual communes.

Words have meaning so unless you're using them as a proper noun or acronym (CCP, NAZI) you follow common usage. Just because a word is useful for demagoguery or insult doesn't make it correct.

onecommentman5y ago

Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.

The CCP has been around for about a hundred years, founded in 1921. They haven’t changed their name in almost 100 years.

“Officially, the CCP is committed to communism and continues to participate in the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties each year. According to the party constitution, the CCP adheres to Marxism–Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, socialism with Chinese characteristics, Deng Xiaoping Theory, the Three Represents, the Scientific Outlook on Development, and Xi Jinping Thought. The official explanation for China's economic reforms is that the country is in the primary stage of socialism, a developmental stage similar to the capitalist mode of production. The command economy established under Mao Zedong was replaced by the socialist market economy under Deng Xiaoping, the current economic system, on the basis that "Practice is the Sole Criterion for the Truth".”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Communist_Party

Not saying your anecdatum isn’t correct, but it’s a higher hill to climb than that. If someone described a person to me as the description above, I’d say “Gee, that’s most likely a communist.”

The Nazi party was founded in 1919 and ended, rather spectacularly, in 1945. That’s only 25 years.

thu21115y ago

This is an old, stale debate. The common usage of the word "communist" is defined not by vague Marxist theorising or tiny enclaves nobody has ever heard of, but rather the typical end state of actual communist revolutions. That's how the word is used in practice.

This has the unfortunate property that at least for China the end-state is constantly evolving, but only in relatively unimportant ways. China has a freer market than the USSR did, but even the USSR had to abandon completely planned economics almost immediately after Lenin took power. After that it was mixed, just like China's. And in all other ways they are the same: no democracy, rampant censorship and propaganda by state-allied corporate entities, no real private property rights (if you can lose your IPO by giving a single speech criticising the government, it's fair to say whatever private property rights you thought you had don't really exist).

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse