Chinese Official Vows to "Purify" the Net

Sleeping Kirby writes to tell us China's Communist party leader, Hu Jintao today announced the intent to leverage the economic potential of the web while seeking to "purify the internet environment". He proposes to do this by maintaining "the initiative in opinion" on the internet and to "'raise the level guidance on the internet," thus civilizing and purifying the internet environment.

Comments

Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[P(0)(!P(k) P(k 1))]

From TFA:

Hu stressed the need to exploit the net's possibilities, while keeping a tight grip. “Ensure that one hand grasps development while one hand grasps administration,” he concluded.

It's still why I think Bolshevism* and its sequelae are more insidious than fascism: sure, the fascists will shoot you if you agitate against them; but the Bolshevik state would prevent you from agitating in the first place by limiting the set of stimuli that comprise your world.

Reminds me a great deal, actually, of that old Semitic myth about a certain garden and tree of knowledge; whose premise was: fragile and jealous power depends upon the ignorance of its subjugates.

The ignorance of subjugates will always be a Bolshevik, and not a fascist, end.

_____________
* Or Marxism, etc.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[P(0)(!P(k) P(k 1))]

By that notion I guess we are living under and Bolshevik revolution in the US right now. . . .

Exactly; I think the case for Bolshevism is stronger than the case for fascism; but “fascism” has been, since WWII, a rhetorically charged word to drum up cheap interest.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[voice_of_all_reason]

Isn't it coincidentally like the US Court definition of porn: "I know it when I see it"?

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[dreddnott]

I thought manufacturing consent was the name of the game.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

I hate to put it this way, but that's nowhere near true. If you look at the wikipedia entry on Nazi Propaganda, it will be a great enlightenment to you. Fascism always included extensive information management. Democracy shouldn't, and isn't designed to, but the last fifty years have had backsliding induced by fearmongers.

Bolshevism and Fascism are both comparatively bad forms of government by certain standards. Government rooted in non-militia military power generally is.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[Oh the Huge Manatee]

I bet you can't even provide a proper definition of "Facism".

Facism = Discrimination against ugly faces, or government by the pretty ones.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[vertinox]

Chinese do not appear to be Communist, Marxist, or even remotely Stalinist or Maoist anymore in ideology or economics.

It is more on the lines with National Socialism economically and a bit Italian Fascist government policy wise (without any central Il Duce figure).

I say this because China is highly nationalist rather than ideologist.

If you published an article today about Tibet/Taiwan is not China would be akin to publishing an article in 1939 Germany that Danzig is not Germany.

Sure you have the ability to do so like any semi-independent but national Pride or fear of nationalist sentiment against you would make you most likely not do so. (Or fear of jail if your shame wasn't enough)

It isn't because Marxism or political ideology that you can't talk about Tinamen Square or Tibet, but Chinese Nationalism.

Remember the riots that targeted Japanese stores even though they were owned by Chinese? These things get out of hand.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[0xdeadbeef]

'Cause god knows, those academic Marxists sure hate anything to do with semiotics.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[CRCulver]

China stopped being communist a long time ago, or did you not notice that the distinctly fascist combination of state and corporate ownership of the means of production has held sway for a while now.

Agreed, Marxism ceased to be the pubicly declared philosophy of the PRC after Tiananmen. Now it's just generic authoritarianism with a good dose of Han nationalism.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[Em Adespoton]

Democracy shouldn't, and isn't designed to, but the last fifty years have had backsliding induced by fearmongers.

The last fifty years of what? If you're talking about the US, it isn't a democracy; it's a limited republic with some facist elements. Democracy is where every "person" being governed has an equal say in the governing of society. Needless to say, it doesn't scale well.

In a US-style republic, those being governed have the option to have their say (not equal representation) in electing (and recalling) people to govern for them. This method of governance has obvious and non-obvious flaws, as we've seen in the US implementation since its inception.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[Kadin2048]

All that Commmie ignorance and the Russians still managed to put a man into space before anyone else.

People seemingly nostalgic for the Red Bear seem to love to belabor the "man in space" point, but also seem to avoid noting that the Soviet Union failed the ultimate intelligence test, when it neglected to ensure its own survival.

If the system was that good, obviously it should have easily managed to hang on -- obviously that would have been the prime national priority. And yet it did not. Perhaps the take-away lesson is that while the system worked admirably on concentrating a lot of resources on a few key problems, it was unable to manage the delegation of a lot of resources, to a lot of smaller problems. (This isn't particularly astute or surprising; control centralization allows for concentration, but at the expense of flexibility.)

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[maxume]

Shorty: Would you be excited to have dinner at a bureaucrat's house? Then why give him the benefit of the doubt regarding the food of a country?

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[DragonWriter]

It's still why I think Bolshevism* and its sequelae are more insidious than fascism: sure, the fascists will shoot you if you agitate against them; but the Bolshevik state would prevent you from agitating in the first place by limiting the set of stimuli that comprise your world.

Bolsheviks have no problem shooting you and fascists have no qualms about censorship, propaganda, and other information control techniques. While one might find substantive rather than merely rhetorical differences between those two brands of authoritarianism, you certainly won't find it in the place you seem to be looking for it.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[johnlcallaway]

Which version of the Garden of Eden myth are talking about so I know which one is the only true one?? It's hard to tell since there are many religions that claim similar stories. And don't give me that 'the Christian one', there are so many different versions of that one it's like arguing about the one true chili recipe.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[Mr. Mikey]

If by "story" you mean "fanciful tale that shows no signs of having actually happened", then I agree.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[JasonKChapman]

Democracy is where every "person" being governed has an equal say in the governing of society. Needless to say, it doesn't scale well.

Not only does it not scale well, but it's decidedly evil. It is, in every sense of the term, mob rule. A representative republic, while unwieldy in some circumstances, at least stands a chance of guarding some fundmental set of principles.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[whathappenedtomonday]

the US, it isn't a democracy; it's a limited republic with some facist elements.

Some elements? See here under "The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism".

Yeah I know I posted this a few times already and some of you might not agree with the characteristics, the author or the site colors. Just count the matches...

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[DuChamp Fitz]

Are you talking about the Soviet Union and Communism? Or Athens and Democracy?

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[nomadic]

People seemingly nostalgic for the Red Bear seem to love to belabor the "man in space" point, but also seem to avoid noting that the Soviet Union failed the ultimate intelligence test, when it neglected to ensure its own survival.

Every civilization falls, eventually.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[VJ42]

Why do people always recite this "the USA isn't a democracy, it's a republic" nonsense, as if the two are mutually exclusive, it would be like me saying, the UK's not a democracy, it's a constitutional monarchy, which would be wrong. The UK is both a constitutional monarchy and a democracy. Dictionary.com defines democracy as

government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. (emphasis mine) The USA and the UK both fit this definition. Most of the world uses the word democracy as shorthand for democratic republics such as the USA, constitutional monarchies like the UK or direct democracies like the Swiss. It's obvious that the GP was using the term in this way.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[PalmKiller]

I will assume you mean sister in the religious sense of the word...but yes...I almost hate to admit it, even you cowards are part of my religious family. At least I do have the balls to post as myself related to my beliefs...your just a coward.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[rumblin'rabbit]

Facism = ... government by the pretty ones.

Angelina as President? Pamela as secretary of state? Cheese burgers as political dissent?

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[Hoi Polloi]

I'd say it was more authoritarian (it is almost like the old imperial system but with a committee instead of 1 emperor). Every country is nationalist but your point is taken. People in China are upset because they have lost many of the social protections they USED to get when China was actually communist. Millions of rural elderly Chinese have lost their social safety nets and their children have broken the old system of intergenerational support by going to work for factories in the cities. China is now communist in name only.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[PalmKiller]

That would be the christian "one". Of course the story wont be the same from all accounts. For one thing it was passed down to decendants as stories...hence me calling it a story (adam and eve did not document it) so you can't expect it to be 100% the same from every source, its been embelished and modified to keep the childrens interest. And even if others had been there to document it right away, take a look at your average car accident, 20 people can see it and you *might* get two that agree exactly as to how it happened. And I myself believe that all the religions have common beginnings and hence the similar stories that vary again...some are more correct than others I am sure. I can't tell you which is more accurate...ask me after I have passed on. I have to feel mine is close enough to the facts to get me to the afterlife but I unlike some do not have a problem with anyones religion.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[cyber-vandal]

I'm hardly nostalgic for the USSR but the first man in space was an excellent way to rebut the parent poster's "Communism makes you stupid" waffle. In any case it was a bunch of fascist Germans who made space flight possible for both sides of the Iron Curtain.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[PalmKiller]

your = you're

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[General Lee's Peking]

I don't know where you studied your theology, but if you spend a little more time reading that to which you were referring you might find that Adam and Eve were led only to think of knowledge as power. After they indulged, even more so than power, they found knowledge was responsibility. It's funny you seem to have the view of religious matters as Marx

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[beckerist]

He said pretty, not fake.

...back to the article. There's no way to stop opinions. Really, when the Chinese say "maintain the initiative in opinion on the internet" they really mean "limit what opinion that are expressed to be strictly that of the government."

Chinese Communism (note: not true communism) really really scares me

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[HomelessInLaJolla]

> If you're talking about the US, it isn't a democracy; it's a limited republic

If the government were adhering to the document which defines and empowers said republic then you would be correct. With the grievous disregard for the ninth and tenth amendments, leading to the egregious exploitation of the "interstate commerce" interpretation, our government can best be characterized as a loosely affiliated group of wealthy individuals with common business interests.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[paeanblack]

The last fifty years of what? If you're talking about the US, it isn't a democracy; it's a limited republic with some facist elements. Democracy is where every "person" being governed has an equal say in the governing of society. Needless to say, it doesn't scale well.

A pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. As a form of governance, it is only effective for highly homogenous societies.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[HomelessInLaJolla]

Dictionaries define terms based upon what the public commonly believes they mean. The dictionary definition cited for democracy is silly: the democratic method has little or nothing to do with the scope of power exercised by the individuals, nor does it ensure that the supreme power is vested with anyone in particular. Democratically elected politicians still owe allegiances first to those who are financially supporting them. Who, then, is the supreme power truly vested in?

That's why I often present the following:

Communism: A government concerned primarily with the economic aspects of the people (commune)
Socialism: A government concerned primarily with the social behaviors of the people
Fascism: A government based upon face value, regulating anything which those in power find convenient to suit their goals and supported by whatever propaganda they decide to publish
Republic: A government which derives power from a written document
Democracy: A system of making a decision by casting votes

At least these definitions are, lingually, more self-explanatory than the convoluted crap which one finds in dictionaries.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is (was) much more honestly descriptive than United States of America. Supposedly we're a democratically elected republic but the complete disregard for the empowering document (specifically the ninth and tenth amendments) puts the USA much closer to a democratically elected fascist state. Often this is the same as a plutocracy.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[Merusdraconis]

While that's a finely-crafted link, I'm not convinced that the contents of the page linking to are exactly accurate. The Wikipedia fascism entry seems to suggest that one of the important elements of fascism is compulsory unions run by the captains of industry, and I don't see anything about that there. Other elements suggested as part of fascism look like it can be generally applied to dictatorships in general, and so calling them 'elements of fascism' isn't particularly useful as it doesn't distinguish fascism from any sort of totalitarianism.

Fascism these days is a polemic word, so it's probably unreasonable to expect people to know what it actually entails; but if one expects to stop fascism rising again it helps to know what to look for. (And whatever you say about the current American government, they're not fascist, and probably won't get a chance to be.)

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[Schemat1c]

Which version of the Garden of Eden myth are talking about so I know which one is the only true one?? It's hard to tell since there are many religions that claim similar stories. Good point. The Native American tribes all had greatly differing creation myths but did not fight over which one was correct because they understood the place of myth in our lives. It's only because the function of myth has been broken in our society that we get people arguing about who's myth is correct. The plain fact is that they are all correct.

For more on this see Carl Jung and/or Joseph Campbell.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[Schemat1c]

I can't tell you which is more accurate...ask me after I have passed on. I have to feel mine is close enough to the facts to get me to the afterlife but I unlike some do not have a problem with anyones religion. The problem is your confusion of myth and facts. That's what makes religious fundamentalism such an ugly and violent thing.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[MyLongNickName]

Errrm... about sixty years in the case of the "Communist" Soviet Union. Hardly "eventually".

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[WhyDoYouWantToKnow]

You're right. It's more like sleeping with your daughter.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[mfrank]

The USSR collapsed because, in Gorbachev, they had a leader that had drank the Kool Aid. Unlike the previous thugs and tyrants, he actually believed communism could survive free speech, that it could survive without oppression.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[johnlcallaway]

Of course all religions have a common beginning. Just look at Christmas. Pagans were calmly enjoying themselves during their winter solstice when Christians decided to get in on the act and book Christmas at the same time. Same is true of Easter. Spring holiday that follows the moon and is all about being reborn, just as nature is reborn. Not to mention fertility symbols like rabbits and eggs (ok ... not really in the Bible, but it is in the holiday). It's easy to have common beginnings when religion A tries to convert people from religion B by providing close, but not quite the same, stories.

Looking through the Christian myths will find many similarities to other religions because they are all stories meant to placate, pacify, subjugate, or educate people.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[mqduck]

I know you put a footnote there, but I have to disagree with your use of the word "Bolshevism" (and actually, "Marxism" would have been a hundred time more inappropriate). Perhaps by "Bolshevism" you meant to refer to the style of government in the Soviet Union, etc. specifically, rather than bother with socialism as a whole. Perhaps you meant to imply that, though the Chinese economy is mostly capitalist, it still has a "Bolshevik" government.

Bolshevism (as a kind of state) didn't have much time to be in power during peacetime. Given the civil war and the invasion that followed, free speech and such was not at the very top of their priority list, to be sure. Anyhow, the system of government never really solidified until after the death of Lenin, under Stalin. "Blaming Stalin for everything would be historical simplism", as Fidel Castro said, but what we can be sure of is that Stalin killed Bolshevism. We can only speculate what would have happened if Trotsky or someone else had won the battle for leadership, but know is that Stalin killed all democracy or especially dissent of any kind in the government itself. One may be a bit surprised to hear that the Communist Party was effectively powerless, but it's the truth (though they still weren't allowed to dissent). Stalin slowly gave all power to government institutions under his direct control.

Trotskyists like to call every government created that was modeled on the Soviet Union after Lenin died (which is all of them) "Stalinist." This is a bit simplistic. Certainly Khrushchev decried Stalin, and so eventually did almost all other communists (other than Moaists). But Khrushchev is very much descended from Stalinism... Call it "post-Stalinist".

So my point is, if you have to call it any one word, call it "Stalinist". It's not perfect, for the reason I stated and others, but it works.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[ElectricRook]

Facism = Discrimination against ugly faces, or government by the pretty ones.

No it's not, Facism (outside of being a fashionable slur in some circles) is an economic system where the Government and Corporations form mutually profitable alliances. Currently Facists are out of fashion, because in the past (1930's) Spanish and Italian Facists did not allow any dissenting opnions. And maybe used some very extreme methods to silence the opposition. And maybe Facists murdered about as many people as did the Communists. And maybe Facists did not invest in building alliances with the Education, Infomation and Entertainment Industries. Which are alliances that the Communists found to quite benecifial, if not in fact very necessary in maintaining their current status of semi-respectability. What with the ability to re-write history and such.

Remember, all Communist Governments _still_ advocate a violent overthrow of non-communist governments, with a special focus on the chief non-communist government (USA). Yes, in fact for me that is a real big issue.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[bruce_the_loon]

Twelve years for Nazi Germany and the Third Reich.

Thirty two for the Afrikaner Republic of South Africa.

The USSR lasted pretty well for a tyrannical society, I would say.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[Digital Vomit]

Why do people always recite this "the USA isn't a democracy, it's a republic" nonsense

Because they learn about systems of government from Sid Meier's video games?

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

Heh. Why not? They're great games. Just great stuff all around. :>

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[Rakishi]

Exactly. During WW2 everyone used propaganda and tried to control information, be it against the enemy or their own people.

The only difference imho is that in a good/true free information wise (be it a democracy or really nice dictatorship) government it is seen as a necessary evil that is to be avoided if possible, and the government's officials understand why it is such. In a bad/real free government the government officials believe they are morally right and thus see controlling information as the "right thing" but are kept in check by other factors (mostly). In a non-free government there are no such external controls.

Then again no government will last forever and sooner or later it will collapse by some combination of factors.

Democracy shouldn't, and isn't designed to

Not exactly, a democracy can have such massive control over information but it simply wouldn't last long. If the people want it then in no way does it go against it being a democracy. Bad decisions by the people are still decisions.

I do wonder if the Cold War will in retrospect be said to have destroyed two superpowers even if it took the second a while to implode. Fear mongers are not a problem really, the problem is a population bred and raised to believe them and not question the government (more so than we are already inclined to do by psychology). A democracy can only truly be killed by the people.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[thedbp]

Ah, yes, THANK YOU, so much, you WONDERFUL RELIGIOUS PERSON, for TOLERATING us HEATHENS. Yes, we are cowards, and JESUS would certainly agree that you must have BALLS in this world. And the way you BEGRUDGINGLY admit that we are all part of the same RELIGIOUS FAMILY (as opposed to all being equal members of the same species) ... MY, WHAT A MODEL CHRISTIAN YOU ARE!

Christianity is stupid. Give up.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[LizardKing]

Bolshevism gets its name from a play on the Russian for "majority", because at a meeting of exiled Russian socialists, the majority voted to pursue a Marxist revolution contrary to doctrine. Marxist doctrine has it that a state must pass through a highly industrialised capitalist phase before the dictatorship of the proletariat can begin. Russia at the time was a highly agrarian state that still had many feudal aspects (the emancipation of the serfs has only been carried out, semi-successfully, a few decades before). Industry was only really starting to grow in a few larger cities such as St Petersburg, and the proletariat formed an insignificant part of the population.

Following the second revolution, which ousted the Mensheviks (the "minority" group from the meeting of exiles), an election was held in Russia. This resulted in a clear win for moderate socialists and the agrarian based "Social Revolutionaries". The result was anulled by the Bolsheviks. What followed was the period of War Communism, the brutal policies that helped the Bolsheviks to win the Russian Civil War. Much of the framework that was later used during the purges of the 1930's was created at this time, such as the secret police. Trotsky was also the main drivng force behind these policies, something he never expressed any guilt or regret over. Lenin also expressed no remorse, however he did sanction a limited and temporary market economy to prevent a total collapse of the Bolshevik state.

It's highly unlikely that the Bolshevik state would have been any better for the ordinary Soviet citizen had Lenin lived, or had one of Stalin's rivals such as Trotsky or Zinoviev succeeded him. We would have most likely seen a similar series of events, with failed industrialisation programs and forced collectivisation of agriculture. Much like Camobodia under the Khmer Rouge - dogmatic leaders killing their populace for some unobtainable utopia.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[Shaper_pmp]

"Why do people always recite this "the USA isn't a democracy, it's a republic" nonsense, as if the two are mutually exclusive"

1. Because they don't understand exactly what "democracy" (a system of decision-making) and "republic" (a particular type of government) mean, but they're bright enough to know there is a difference between the two.

2. Because it's easier to paper over this uncertainty with false certainty, thereby making you look as if you're the one who's out of his depth instead of the person drawing the incorrect comparison.

3. Often, because it seems, to the person drawing the distinction, to offer an excuse for America to do whatever undemocratic things it likes, but still bang on about "Freedom!!!1!!1!one!11!".

"USA! USA! American freedom! USA!"

"But, isn't the USA the country currently violating every democratic guideline going - ignoring the geneva convention, detaining people indefinitely without charge, conducting wars of aggression to deliberately destabilise non-threatening other countries, restricting freedom of speech, movement and association, and warrantlessly surveilling its own citizens?"

"DUH!!1!! America isn't a democracy, it's a republic, Idiot!!! Freedom! Freedom!"

There is no conflict between a "republic" and a "democracy" - a republic is just a type of democracy.

Anyone telling you different is either mistaken, or deliberately blurring the lines to paper over holes in their arguments.

FWIW, I think the GP was a number 1, but number 3s are everywhere, these days.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[daem0n1x]

I disagree completely. Despite all the problems related to freedom of expression that happened in the Socialist states, the commonality of knowledge is one of the pillars of Marxism. The former Soviet Block countries have the best levels of education in the World, even better than the rich capitalist countries.

Socialism is based in the belief that everyone is equal. Fascism is based on the belief that there are superior people that should have the power and lesser people that must obey or die.

The so called Socialist states have made huge deviations from the original Marxist doctrine. The political organisation created by Stalin in the USSR resembles more a fascist state than a socialist one. And China is definitely a fascist country. They just use the Communist iconography to disguise their real nature.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[cayenne8]

"Why do people always recite this "the USA isn't a democracy, it's a republic" nonsense..."

Well, because, that is what it is. Go look up the words and see for yourself.

Heck, if nothing else, look at the words in the pledge of allegaince..."...And to the republic for which it stands...."

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[mqduck]

First, the Russian Social Democrats split over some incredibly petty detail over how to phrase who should be allowed to join the party. Also, the proletarian class was not "insignificant", just very small. I'm not sure why you felt the need to include the first paragraph at all, but if it was to make yourself sound like an expert, you failed. Your jump from the temporary rise of the more moderate Menshiviks and Socialist (not "Social") Revolutionaries following the upheaval of Febuary to War Communism is no less unimpressive.

But here's the thing that gets me: you say "What followed was the period of War Communism, the brutal policies that helped the Bolsheviks to win the Russian Civil War. Much of the framework that was later used during the purges of the 1930's was created at this time, such as the secret police" as though this somehow proves it was only a matter of time till Communist Totalitarianism. Again, I'm not really interested in speculation about what could have been, but pointing out that a state created a reppressive apparatus during a time of civil war isn't exactly a scathing indictment.

Oh, and forced collectivization was very much a hallmark of Stalinism in particular, so I don't understand that assumption. And this talk of
"failed industrialisation" is obviously an example of letting ideology blind you from reality. Suffice it for me to remind you that no other nation has ever industrialized as rapidly as the Soviet Union, and that Russia went from being a backwards, mostly feudal nation (as you yourself admitted) to becoming a world superpower AFTER suffering the majority of the Nazi war machine's wrath.

Please, is there some class everyone takes in college called "Marx for Bullshitters" or something?

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[name*censored*]

I've thought about this one; what's stopping the "shunt" (the thing between the government and military) from not acting in the best interests of the people? Sure, the government doesn't necessarily act in the best interests of the people (even though the whole point of democracy is to keep the government in check - not in cheque). Probably the most effective system against corruption would be to split the military in three (economically controlled by a central civil government to ensure that neither faction has more power) and put some sort of unsplittable, uncorruptable prize for the three factions to compete over (thus preventing them from allying against the civil government). The civil government would stay uncorrupted via the process of democracy (I know it doesn't work in reality but shh), and make it a capital penalty for there to be any (fiscal or otherwise) ties between the government and the media (thus avoiding control by propoganda), and a capital offence for the military faction leaders to communicate with each other outside of a public forum. If 2 factions ally to destroy the third, the government reproportions the resources to favour the underdog until calm is restored.

Perhaps the unsplittable/uncorruptable prize can be that you can only contend for civil government leadership if you have served as leader of one of the military faction, and the civil government leadership position is much more favourable than leading a military faction (maybe the supreme-generals are forced to live in near-poverty, kept only in good enough health that they can adequately do their jobs). Of course, once corruption gets in it would eat the system from the inside out, much like a virus getting into a firewalled network. And it would mean that the country is unable to strike a foreign enemy with the full force of it's power (because of the political rivalry of the three faction leaders).

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[VJ42]

Did you even read the rest of my post? hell, did you even read the seven words after those you quoted? I'll summerise for your benifit; being a democracy and a republic are not mutually exclucive.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[VJ42]

So how would you define the UK, in your system? I define it as a democracy, as we vote for MPs to represent us, and parliment is soverign. Most people would call that form of decision making representative democracy. Our form of government however is that of a constitutional monarchy, as the head of state is not elected but born into the role. I repeat, being a democracy does not exclude you from being a republic or a constitunial mornarchy.

However it's perfectly possible to have republics or monarchies that are undemocratic, see current day China or WWII Japan. What you have to remember is that a democracy is a form of decision making, not a form of government in itself; unless you are takling about direct democracy, and the nearest we have to that are the Swiss.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[sac13]

The USA is a republic, which is a form or representative democracy. The reason people stress this fact is because of advances in technology that allow public opinion to be measured and reported. By using polls to continuously monitor public opinion and use that data to create and drive policy is inherently dangerous because it slides more toward pure democracy. I know that the general consensus is that the more democracy, the better. The problem is when we start considering everyone's opinion on every single subject related to policy. Most people (in the good ole US of A, anyway) only really pay attention to what the important drivers are in the American Idol karaoke competition. It's actually quite frightening if you think that these people who received their illustrious educations from America's notoriously great public education system would have that much of a say so in something such as national energy policy. SURE, they're all definitely impacted by it and that impact must be considered. However, I'd venture to say that less than 0.1% of the population is actually qualified enough to have an intelligent and well-thought position on the subject. BUT... the news media (conservative and liberal) use polls to say, "SEE!!! The people don't like your way. They like our way. SO, that's what we should do." It's a great way to work if all you want to do is get re-elected. It completely sucks if you actually want to really solve problems. And you should never forget to beware the tyranny of the majority.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[Em Adespoton]

FWIW, I think the GP was a number 1, but number 3s are everywhere, these days.

As the GP, I'd say it was closer to #2, with a tad of #1 thrown in and a lot of #4. I just found it easier to paper over the issue rather than spout a long diatribe about how the US is democratic to a degree, but that its republic nature has led to a system where the votes can be repressed and swayed with quite a bit of finesse, and where it is almost impossible for an individual to be elected based on a platform they are actually capable of honoring throughout their term of office. This is definitely not an issue limited to the US, or to democratic republics, so I thought I'd go with the simple answer and let people hash out the details in the replies :) My original comment was more to open discussion while stemming the #3 responses than anything else.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[HomelessInLaJolla]

If I've read your post correctly I would define the UK as a democratically elected republic with a monarch figurehead. Some form of documentation is necessary to define and empower the government in a republic. Should the government act with blatant disregard for the document which empowers and defines it, as in the US, then it's little better than an arbitrary fascist or plutocratic state. I've heard that the monarchy in the UK holds very little legal sway over the government--though their social influence may very well be ten times as strong as any legally binding power.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[slysithesuperspy]

I think they (or we, I've said a similar thing on a few occasions) are shortening "direct democracy" to democracy. I presume there varying levels of directness in different democracy systems, but the point is, in the US, thee people should not be able to vote in some national health care nonsense (for example) because the elected people should not have the power to be able to do that. They should be democratically elected to uphold the constitution. So, in that respect they do not have supreme power because the constitution restricts it. In the UK there is less restrictions on the power, for example the power to take away free speech. I'm no lawyer, as you may have guessed, but that is just my perception of it.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[PalmKiller]

Actually there is no confusion here at all, I know the stories are embellished, however some events and locations have been found and verified...much is based on fact...how much I cannot say. Again your beliefs are your own...I have not tried to convert anyone that I can recall, I dated an atheist for over a year, and never once tried to convert her. I just don't want anyone stepping on my toes and trying to push their non-beliefs on me. I get it that you don't believe and I really hope for your sake you are right (I have nothing to loose if I am wrong), but I will stand up for my beliefs when they are publicly challenged. This is the modern day for Christians...I have not killed anyone in any religious wars because their beliefs were different than mind, those crazed fundamentalist groups give us all a bad name. One such group is those over in the middle east that decided we were evil and not religiously correct so they can over and crashed plans into one of our buildings. Did I rush over and try to save their souls...um no I stayed home and said...damn it would suck to be them right now...I hope they get their 20 virgins and all.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[VJ42]

I would define the UK as a democratically elected republic with a monarch figurehead This phrase shows me that you are very wrong; a republic by definition*, does not have a monarch as head of state. Secondly, the UK hasn't got a single constitutional document, instead the constitution is takes the form of a series of acts of parliment and other documents, from the Magna carta, and 1689 bill of rights, various acts of union up to the 1998 human rights act (none of these are formally called our constitution, but IMO constitutional lawers would generally agrree with me), combined with a healthy dose of tradition. Parliment passes and changes our unwritten constitution as eaisly as any other act.
 
As for the monarchy, the power it holds (technically the Queen can declare war, disolve parliment and and sign legally treaties amongst other things)is passed to the Prime Minister by Royal perogative, and is hence held accountable to parliment (this is one of those things done by tradition, AFAIK no law mandates this). The UK's constitution is a quagmire, and there is no simple term to describe it, the one we use is, as I mentioned, "constitunal monarchy"; as a form of government, and democracy for the decision making process.

*As demonstrated by the fact that people who oppose the monarch are called republicans, see also the dictionary:
3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[whathappenedtomonday]

You are quite right, the link comes very close to 'flamebait' and is meant to provoke thoughts and discussions. What I get is a reference to Wiki (not a very reliable source of info when talking about controversial topics that put the US in a not-so-bright light) and some anon shithead calling me a "lazy, credulous bastard". So what, I don't care about karma and gladly burn some more:

I came across an interesting article about the M3 series, the broadest measure of money supply, which is no longer published by the Federal Reserve. Wondering why that is I found this interview with Ron Paul, a Republican who represents the 14th Congressional district of Texas. Very interesting read, indeed. Knowing that Iran has plans to move international oil trade away from the dollar, it seems like:

- the Fed tries to disguise inflation and its sources and to play down the deficit

- the almost inevitable conflict with Iran is an attempt to keep the dollar and US economy from collapsing, which is what would eventually happen if oil business was to be based on the euro as Iran intends to do

- a system of deception, propaganda and "fascist" control (by revoking civil rights and establishing "homeland security legislation") is being put in place (or already is), and the goal is to disguise the facts that the US currency and economy are crumbling, the deficit exploding, inflation pauperizing the low-to-middle-income people, the reputation of the country going down the drain and the people being sacrificed in order to maximize corporate winnings and protect those in power (those are corporations, as well, and as many of you know "corporation" comprises the political powers - Halliburton etc...).

And while this happens, I read "Go USA! U.S.A! We rule! Best country in the world!" posts here on /. This country is so seriously screwed, it almost makes you cry. I really do feel sorry for the people, cause they will one day wake up. Hopefully - you said: probably - not in a fascist country, but I have my doubts.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[HomelessInLaJolla]

> a republic by definition

Whose definition? That's what this whole thing has been about--that definitions in the common dictionaries are nearly useless for any meaningful purpose. My proposed definition of republic requires only a document which defines and empowers the government (such as the US Constitution). If that document allows for a monarch then so be it.

Did you want to argue? Sorry. I'm not interested.

> the UK hasn't got a single constitutional document

Other than the fact that they exist: what empowers the two houses of Parliament? If it's the Magna Carta then that would be the constitutional document. Are you familiar with the concept of a heirarchy for the derivation of power in a government? Maybe not if you're still clinging to common dictionaries. For example: in truth the US Congress cannot write laws which supersede the Constitution--such a thing would require a Constitutional amendment. That's not to say it hasn't happened. Politicians rarely concern themselves with anything which would be a hindrance to them and often recruit droves of paid "yes-men" (attorneys and courts) to help convince themselves that they are correct.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[Shaper_pmp]

Heh, fair play. Apologies for the perjorative tone in my GC reply(?) - it's sometimes hard to divine motivation in comments like that, and I think we're both agreed that there are far too many #3s out there. ;-)

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[VJ42]

what empowers the two houses of Parliament? Parliment derives it's power from the monarch, not from a constitutinal document. The monarch derives her power, from God (she is also head of the Church of England, we don't have any seperation of church and state, thank you Henry VIII); a legacy of the devine right of kings.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism

[LizardKing]

First, the Russian Social Democrats split over some incredibly petty detail over how to phrase who should be allowed to join the party. Also, the proletarian class was not "insignificant", just very small. I'm not sure why you felt the need to include the first paragraph at all, but if it was to make yourself sound like an expert, you failed. Your jump from the temporary rise of the more moderate Menshiviks and Socialist (not "Social") Revolutionaries following the upheaval of Febuary to War Communism is no less unimpressive.

That "petty detail" was incredibly fundamental in that it broke with a key assumption of Marxism - that proletarian revolution would naturally follow a period of capitalism, when the proletariat would learn why they needed to overthrow that system. This idea that an intellectual elite could impose a revolution drove the Bolsheviks willingness to enforce their ideas through repression. They were convinced they were right, and that justified everything.

But here's the thing that gets me: you say "What followed was the period of War Communism, the brutal policies that helped the Bolsheviks to win the Russian Civil War. Much of the framework that was later used during the purges of the 1930's was created at this time, such as the secret police" as though this somehow proves it was only a matter of time till Communist Totalitarianism. Again, I'm not really interested in speculation about what could have been, but pointing out that a state created a reppressive apparatus during a time of civil war isn't exactly a scathing indictment.

My points were that Bolshevism was not popular amongst a majority of Russians, that Bolshevik leaders did not care (they knew they were "right") and that out of that arrogance comes an inevitable system of coercion. The War Communism period simply sped up the descent into state repression, and the increased entrenchment state institutions rather than one that would wither away into some kind of utopia. Trotsky only remains an admired figure for a small but vocal group of people because he was expelled in the leadership battle with Stalin (and subsequently murdered). I'm convinced that the same botched industrialisation programs and a large dgree of repression would have occured had he succeeded Lenin - or any of the leading Bolsheviks had succeeded him for that matter.

Oh, and forced collectivization was very much a hallmark of Stalinism in particular, so I don't understand that assumption. And this talk of "failed industrialisation" is obviously an example of letting ideology blind you from reality. Suffice it for me to remind you that no other nation has ever industrialized as rapidly as the Soviet Union, and that Russia went from being a backwards, mostly feudal nation (as you yourself admitted) to becoming a world superpower AFTER suffering the majority of the Nazi war machine's wrath.

For other examples of collectivisation, see any regime that's tried to apply Marxist economics to a largely agrarian economy (China for example). As for industry in Russia, Stolypin's reforms had already laid the groundwork for a reasonable industrialisation - what stymied that was the the first world war. If you want to argue that Stalin's regime was successful at industrialisation in the 1930's, perhaps you want to look at the results of the five year plans. The increase in output in almost all areas were dismal. The need to increase output in the second world war was the big driver in this area, assisted afterwards by the plant and knowledge gained from occupied parts of Europe. As for ideology blinding me, I have none that I subscribe to (I'm probably best described as a lefty-liberal). I am actually very wary of anyone who subscribes to an ideology, as I went to university when it was still credible to call yourself a Marxist historian. Trying to rationally argue with them is a little like discussing homosexuality or abortion with a religious fundamenalist. They are so convinced of their own infallibility that they

They're going to what?

[MECC]

Don't they mean purify humanity?

Re:They're going to what?

[User 956]

I don't know, but it's ironic that they want to "purify the internet environment", while their actual environment goes to complete shit.

Re:They're going to what?

[bigpat]

Don't they mean purify humanity? Of course they do. I think this is the relevant quote:

Sure as I know anything I know this, they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, 10, they'll swing back to the belief that they can make people better. And I do not hold to that. So no more running. I aim to misbehave.
-Captain Malcolm Reynolds, Serenity

Re:They're going to what?

[Tackhead]

> They're going to what?
>Don't they mean purify humanity?

Abbot: "Not they, Hu."
Costello: "Who's going to what?"
Abbot: "Hu's going to purify the Internet. What's going to purify humanity."
Costello: "I don't know who or what's gonna purify humanity! Or how!"
Abbot: "Hao? Who's Hao?"
Costello: "I don't know!"
Both: "All your base!"

Re:They're going to what?

[sgt_doom]

The funny thing is (funny, that is, to us thinking people, User 956) that they have all the money they need to do this.

After all, the Bush Administration continuously borrows extraordinary sums from the Chinese government to buy war materiel from the Chinese Red Army-owned factories (along with Wall Mart and Sam's Club, and various other retailers [Nordstrom, The Gap, etc.]) for the occupation of Iraq (and no doubt, the soon-to-be nuclear strike on Iran!). Perhaps not coincidentally, the newest foreign affairs advisor to Bush/Cheney is Henry Kissinger, a paid registered foreign agent to the government of China for many, many years (along with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia).

Now...I suppose all those "coincidence theorists" out there would have a logical answer for this.......

Re:They're going to what?

[rucs_hack]

Communist states have often used dramatic terms to get their meaning across.

'Purify'
'Glorious'
'Courageous'

And other terms meant to indicate that somehow the idea described is 'whiter then white' and all that man can aspire to. It's all part of the ethos. If people thought that the idea's of the government weren't perfect, then why they might start thinking up their own idea's, and that will never do.
Of course us capitalist democracies do get the same stuff sometimes, but we can say 'screw you' to the people saying it.

Whatever, it's obvious this guy has never seen 4chan, or he would have already given up....

Re:They're going to what?

[mfrank]

Hell, I'm gonna grant your greatest wish. I'm gonna show you a world without sin.

Re:They're going to what?

[superpulpsicle]

The environmental thing is a different topic. Especially since we are the ones making them build Nike factories in their region. If it wasn't for the serious outsourcing they would have less toxic factories and cleaner air. This is a 2 sided debate.

Re:They're going to what?

[Turn-X Alphonse]

And with this comment I officially set all funny comments to -5.

There is just a point where Slashdot becomes too pathetic to take.. this is the point. Not only is it racist but it's retarded.

Re:They're going to what?

[orkysoft]

Retarded I get, but how is it racist?

Multi talented

[LiquidCoooled]

Hu Jintao is a very talented man.

from the article:

Hu stressed the need to exploit the net's possibilities, while keeping a tight grip. "Ensure that one hand grasps development while one hand grasps administration," he concluded.

On the internet I thought one hand was for the mouse and the other was otherwise occupied. Its no wonder he is keeping a tight grip.

Re:Multi talented

[eMbry00s]

It got lost in translation that he was developing RSI and administrating some love.

Re:Multi talented

[init100]

On the internet I thought one hand was for the mouse and the other was otherwise occupied.

I guess administration means surfing for porn. Figuring out what is meant by development is left as an exercise for the reader. :)

Purify this!

[suso]

Well with the unix epoch hitting 1169696969 in 7 hours and thus a dip in the 65% of people spending time with their SO, it should be harder for him to purify the net.

Applaud!

[Prysorra]

We need to purify the internet of mentioning the word democracy! Oh wait.....

At least China is honest in intentions

[Anonymous Coward]

unlike USA with their "think of the children" "piracy", "PAC" excuse

truth ? you can't handle the truth !

Re:At least China is honest in intentions

[cryfreedomlove]

I was waiting for this post. Everytime a post on Slashdot criticizes China for censorhip, someone comes along and apologizes for China by pointing out American advocates for censorship.

Didn't your mother teach you that two wrongs do not make a right? I am against censorship. If China censors then I am against that. If the USA censors then I am against that. Human rights is not a team sport.

Worst Fortune Cookie Ever!

[Critical Facilities]

From TFA
"Ensure that one hand grasps development while one hand grasps administration," he concluded.

What the hell does that even mean?

Re:Worst Fortune Cookie Ever!

[Lucan Varo]

Means that one person will be strangling the internet. :)

Re:Worst Fortune Cookie Ever!

[AceCaseOR]

So... that's what the kids are calling it these days. ;-)

Re:Worst Fortune Cookie Ever!

[DuBois]

Old Zen saying: "The sound of one hand clapping." But Zen is typically from Japan, so it may not apply.

Re:Worst Fortune Cookie Ever!

[spun]

In order to make sense of this, one must apply the Fortune Cookie Rule, thus making the statement, "Ensure that one hand grasps development while one hand grasps administration, in bed."

So you hold on to what is "developing" with one hand, and "administer" to your bedmate with the other. Works pretty well for me!

Re:Worst Fortune Cookie Ever!

[DragonWriter]

"Ensure that one hand grasps development while one hand grasps administration," he concluded.

What the hell does that even mean?

Aside from the fact that Hu Jintao needs the Leia-to-Tarkin retort, it means that while over here (waves off to one side) is the Ministry of Network Technology and Applications Research and Development [that's the hand grasping development], over there (waves off to the other) is the Ministry of Internet Monitoring, Censorship, and Dissident Suppression [or the hand grasping "administration"].

(Actual names of ministries may vary.)

Re:Worst Fortune Cookie Ever!

[hodet]

It means the government will exploit this puppy to the very max but will bitchslap any citizen who tries to use it against them.

From the good-luck-with-that dept.

[Short Circuit]

You might think that the average person wouldn't stand for it. But I recall someone once saying the "average person" is 5' tall, female, and Chinese.

While China may only house 15-20% of the world's population, that's still a huge fraction. That would be one hell of an astroturf.

Re:From the good-luck-with-that dept.

[Anonymous Coward]

But I recall someone once saying the "average person" is 5' tall, female, and Chinese.

Is she single?

Re:From the good-luck-with-that dept.

[Short Circuit]

But I recall someone once saying the "average person" is 5' tall, female, and Chinese.

 
Is she single?
  No, the average girl is already married. :-(

Re:From the good-luck-with-that dept.

[apt142]

Considering how few females there are in china, I'd say he's better off leaving the internet full of porn.

Re:From the good-luck-with-that dept.

[king-manic]

But I recall someone once saying the "average person" is 5' tall, female, and Chinese.

Average chinese male is 5'6", average female is 5'2". And there are more men in china then women. Also, chinese people have odd ideas of "face" and "rightousness" which ussually correspond to being stoic and not rocking the boat. The government reflects the majority of China in it's goals and ideals ussually. It works for them mostly. I am a Chinese born Canadian. Naturalized over 20 years. I visit often and everyone seems to be content, industrious, and tired. They are more aware of what goes on in the world then you would give them credit for, but some "facts" they know are obviously propaganda. Not much different then some of the "facts" Americans or canadians know. They believe Tibet was always china and some people were just making trouble. Just as Canadians beleive that we're plauralistic and tolerant and that racism is a small problem. Or American believe that anyone can strike it rich.

Re:From the good-luck-with-that dept.

[Short Circuit]

Nice to hear from you.

However, that particular quote was a joke I took out of a 1970's Heinlein science fiction novel; Even if it was serious to begin with, it would be outdated now.

Re:From the good-luck-with-that dept.

[Shelled]

Good post.

Re:From the good-luck-with-that dept.

[Heian-794]

:But I recall someone once saying the "average person" is 5' tall, female, and Chinese.

::Is she single?

:::No, the average girl is already married. :-(

Not anymore! For the first time ever: 51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse

Re:From the good-luck-with-that dept.

[Short Circuit]

Sure, but most of those are on prolonged engagements.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!!

[teutonic_leech]

Yeah, just what we needed - officials of a country with a long track record in crimes against humanity bent on 'cleaning up the Internet'.

Re:Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!!

[Em Adespoton]

Yeah, just what we needed - officials of a country with a long track record in crimes against humanity bent on 'cleaning up the Internet'.

Which country are you referring to? A number come to mind....

Re:Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!!

[Shaper_pmp]

Yeah - who needs a bunch of uptight, repressive, humourless foreigners in charge of a monolithic "big government", run by a single party, who until recently exercised total control over their entire country's political system, using that unrivalled power to crush opposition, shit on civil liberties, eliminate free speech while telling their citizens they were the envy of the world, and to fuck up the environment, pass ridiculous "laws" seeking to regulate the internet and flout both international law and international opinion?

Oh, sorry - were we talking about China? ;-p

King Canute

[kaleco]

This reminds me of a story about a man who thought he could command the waves.

Re:King Canute

[d'fim]

No, he did not think so. That was his point.

Re:King Canute

[Anonymous Coward]

ARGH. People get this wrong constantly. Go and actually read the legend of King Canute, he knew the waves wouldn't stop and carried out that little exercise to show that he didn't have power above God's will. (At least, he did if it ever really happened.)

1984

[EaglemanBSA]

'...He loved Big Brother. The End.'

Re:1984

[Rob T Firefly]

Dude, spoiler warning!

/tosses book

Well done

[grub]

Every time you buy some "MADE IN CHINA" shit from WalMart, etc. you help bankroll this type of crap.

Re:Well done

[dreddnott]

I'm fairly certain that items manufactured in Taiwan and imported to the United States actually say that they are Made in Taiwan, rather than China or Republic of China or "that darn island that we're going to take back one day" or whatever.

Items manufactured in mainland China almost never qualify as PRC or People's Republic of China, but rather as simply Made in China. As one is a democratic republic and the other is a communist state with capitalist leanings, I'd assume manufacturers would wish to avoid any confusion.

Try not watching TV at all sometime.

Re:Well done

[shaitand]

I call bullshit right back. First items made in taiwan are stamped that way. Second, it is no secret that Taiwan was used a front to faciliate trade between the Chinese and the US when the government was unwilling to admit to the people that such trade occured.

It is really very simple. Chinese businessman has 40 plants in China and one in Taiwan, he manufacturers 40,000 pairs of shoes in Chinese plants. Then ships them to Taiwan and completes the final step by having the last factory stamp Nike logos, attach made in Taiwan tags and ship to the United States. The whole process bypasses the entire moral point of the embargo but may have even been legal.

That is why big business pushes the idea of 'upholding the law' and the idea that legal and morally right (and the reverse, illegal and morally wrong) have some sort of relation. That way, as long as they adhere to whatever regulations or laws exist they can do anything they want (including bypass the spirit of said laws) without ever doing anything 'wrong' or 'bad'. Couple that with constant lobbying to support a 'free market' where there are as few regulations and laws to 'work around' in the first place and business can basically do anything that turns a profit. Most businesses even stretch their moral concepts to include it being okay to break agreements and laws so long as they are willing to pay the fines and penalties associated with doing so. Microsoft is a good example of this.

Re:Well done

[shaitand]

It is really very simple. Chinese businessman has 40 plants in China and one in Taiwan, he manufacturers 40,000 pairs of shoes in Chinese plants. Then ships them to Taiwan and completes the final step by having the last factory stamp Nike logos, attach made in Taiwan tags and ship to the United States. The whole process bypasses the entire moral point of the embargo but may have even been legal.

That is why big business pushes the idea of 'upholding the law' and the idea that legal and morally right (and the reverse, illegal and morally wrong) have some sort of relation. That way, as long as they adhere to whatever regulations or laws exist they can do anything they want (including bypass the spirit of said laws) without ever doing anything 'wrong' or 'bad'. Couple that with constant lobbying to support a 'free market' where there are as few regulations and laws to 'work around' in the first place and business can basically do anything that turns a profit. Most businesses even stretch their moral concepts to include it being okay to break agreements and laws so long as they are willing to pay the fines and penalties associated with doing so. Microsoft is a good example of this.

Re:Well done

[king-manic]

Items manufactured in mainland China almost never qualify as PRC or People's Republic of China, but rather as simply Made in China. As one is a democratic republic and the other is a communist state with capitalist leanings, I'd assume manufacturers would wish to avoid any confusion

On is a monolithic centralized government which is sure it knows best and will do what it wants to make it ahppen, and the other is a rough assortment of gansters who call themselves a government. Taiwan is much less tyranical but democracy != not evil. Almost every parliment member is a crime-boss in Taiwan. When they have interparty disputes they often degenerate into fist fights.

Re:Well done

[siufish]

If I buy some "MADE IN THE UNITED STATES" stuff from Amazon, do I help killing civilians in Iraq or keeping "terrorists" in Guantanamo Bay without trial? Please, this kind of non sequitur to push your agenda is no better than the propaganda from the Chinese government.

BTW, who mod this informative? What "information" is there in this statement?

Re:Well done

[nephridium]

Every time you buy some "MADE IN CHINA" shit from WalMart, etc. you help bankroll this type of crap.

Just in the same way as buying "MADE IN THE USA" helps bankroll the war in Iraq plunging the whole region into chaos and thus far causing nearly 60000 (documented) civilian deaths?

Yea, I tend to agree with you - let's buy only products made in Sweden, Mongolia or Antarctica.

Re:Well done

[LS]

Thanks for contributing to the "this country GOOD, that country BAD!" propaganda and world view, because China is the only country which does bad things.

Does Mr. Gore Know Yet?

[livnah]

Has anyone let Mr. Gore know yet that his creation will be ... upgraded and "purified"?

I think what he means is...

[KeithH]

...that he is going to ban Internet Explorer (tight grip) and force a replacement for SMTP (innovate).

Well, he's nearly got the clout for it. Good luck Hu. You've got my vote! oh wait...

Re:I think what he means is...

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Your post advocates a (x) legislative ...

Re:I think what he means is...

[Jon47]

This place could use a little cleanup, just look at that mess of spam emails, phishing attempts, viruses and sites developed offering no services but rather only search engine optimized pages designed to accrue ad money a fraction of a penny at a time. I'm not sure if fascist misogyny is the path to our answer but I'm willing to give it a shot!

Re:I think what he means is...

[ColdWetDog]

just look at that mess of spam emails, phishing attempts, viruses

And coming from China. Think of that.... Maybe he's on to something.

Purify the internet environment?

[Raterman]

Who does he think he's kidding?

The Register isn't qualified to report on this.

[It's a thing]

Anyone who confuses the Web and the Internet isn't qualified to report about either.

And anyone who puts a ® at the end of an entire article as if it was a copyright symbol isn't qualified to copyright or register as a trademark anything.

Re:The Register isn't qualified to report on this.

[JesseMcDonald]

And anyone who puts a ® at the end of an entire article as if it was a copyright symbol isn't qualified to copyright or register as a trademark anything.

I believe they're using the "®" as a logo ("R" for "Register") rather than attempting to indicate a registered trademark.

Re:The Register isn't qualified to report on this.

[It's a thing]

IANAL, but I'm doubtful about the legality of that.

They should just have a tiny version of their logo at the top for that anyway, it's not misleading.

Re:The Register isn't qualified to report on this.

[JesseMcDonald]

I'm not a lawyer either, but I see no reason why their use should be illegal. The way they're using the ® symbol, IMHO, couldn't be reasonably confused as meaning "registered trademark". (What would the "trademark" be in this context?) On the contrary, it bears a remarkable resemblance to the larger version of their logo at the top of the page. Also, there exist much older commerical and private interpretations of the "circle R" symbol which have not been found to conflict with "registered trademark" to the best of my knowledge.

Re:The Register isn't qualified to report on this.

[jez9999]

Their main logo is an opaque circle containing a bird's head. The registered trademark symbol is a transparent circle containing an 'R'. Apart from the circle, where is the similarity?

I agree, their usage of the ® symbol is bizarre. Its HTML entity name is ® so perhaps that 'reg' thing is why they use it.

Re:The Register isn't qualified to report on this.

[wiredlogic]

I believe the Register's use of Circle-R is intended to reflect the common use of a special termination icon at the end of articles in printed magazines.

Purify the internet...?

[TinBromide]

I tried that once, but i got too many naked ladies jammed in the filter and the heuristic algorithm gained sentience and is currently working in atlantic city. Kind of like skynet, but with porn.

Re:Purify the internet...?

[spun]

Kind of like skynet, but with porn.

So, ThighNet then?

Re:Purify the internet...?

[drinkypoo]

Kind of like skynet, but with porn.

So, ThighNet then?

Nope. PieNet.

Re:Purify the internet...?

[spun]

Damn, damn, damn. I was so close...

And this is unique to "Bolshevism" how?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

...the Bolshevik state would prevent you from agitating in the first place by limiting the set of stimuli that comprise your world...

And this is unique to "Bolshevism" how? Controlling the media to present a picture of fair and rational government has been the aim of almost every government/state/ruler in history and it continues to the present day. You need to hit the books if you think fascists (or democrats - small "d") don't practice this too...

Re:And this is unique to "Bolshevism" how?

[CRCulver]

Controlling the media to present a picture of fair and rational government has been the aim of almost every government/state/ruler in history and it continues to the present day.

Though, to be sure, one cannot assume that just because governments sometimes manipulate the press, any negative information about a government that eventually comes to light is true. During the reign of Justinian, he had Procopius produce a history of his times which was, of course, laden with remarks to sooth the emperor and avoid ascribing anything negative to the empire's administration. After his death, Procopius' Secret History appeared, purporting to give the "real story" of things, calling the general Belisarius an imcompetent fool and the Empress Theodora an outright whore. Yet, almost no historians believe anything in the secret history, which seems to be a kind of saucy genre of fiction that flourished at the time, and the reliable account is actually in the official production.

What I find at Slashdot is often groupthink that anything from the government is automatically wrong and any gossipy rumours that come from "underground sources" (who are more appreciated the more they try to look victimized) are automatically true. The world isn't that simple.

Re:And this is unique to "Bolshevism" how?

[RAMMS EIN]

``What I find at Slashdot is often groupthink that anything from the government is automatically wrong and any gossipy rumours that come from "underground sources" (who are more appreciated the more they try to look victimized) are automatically true. The world isn't that simple.''

No, but it's good to be skeptical. In my corner of Europe, many people seem to have a blind faith in the government, and will reject anything that resembles a conspiracy theory. I don't have any reason to believe my government seeks to harm me, but even if they mean the best, they can do harm. They have certainly been wrong, uninformed, and naive on some issues. And even the wildest conspiracy theories are sometimes true. So the right approach is to treat everything with a healthy dose of skepticism, and _always_ think for yourself. The problem is, of course, that nobody has time to become an expert and think about everything government decides about.

Re:And this is unique to "Bolshevism" how?

[Opportunist]

I'm taking it a step further, I'm quite convinced that my government does not have the best interest of its subjects in mind but rather the appeasing of certain special interest groups, most of all some corporations. Pair that with being simply and plainly clueless (and without the incentive to get any clue) in a majority of areas and only some lobbyists as their key information source, who of course tell them a rather biased point of view.

It doesn't take wild conspiracy theories anymore to assume the government is not working for its people. No, they won't go out of their way to harm you. Today I think this is called "collateral damage".

Re:And this is unique to "Bolshevism" how?

[styryx]

This is the same Theodora who used to have sex with men on stage and when they were done proceeded to the front row for more of the same?

Yeah, you're right, she probably wasn't an outright whore.

Small problem for Mr. Hu

[Billosaur]

A vast majority of the world's servers are in countries not named the People's Republic of China. Therefore, to do as he insists, he would have to take control of those servers. I suspect, that even given the large number of people at his beck and call, that is a task beyond his capacity. At some point, every person is possession of sole authority in some organization gets delusions of grandeur.

In plain English: he's FOS.

Re:Small problem for Mr. Hu

[gstoddart]

A vast majority of the world's servers are in countries not named the People's Republic of China. Therefore, to do as he insists, he would have to take control of those servers.

Or, he tries harder to make the 'great firewall of China' even more efficient so that the stuff that he can't directly control, he can supress. If his little corner of the world seems to have been purified, and his own citizens can't see anything to refute it, his plan must have worked.

I suspect that's a more likely strategy.

Cheers

Re:Small problem for Mr. Hu

[spun]

I think he's talking about the Internet as seen by Chinese citizens. Here's your quote:

Hu told the politburo the party should "strengthen administration and development of our country's internet culture".

Not that I think you're wrong about the delusions of granduer thing, but this is something within his power to do.

Re:Small problem for Mr. Hu

[fgb]

If Dr. Hu had said this, then I would be concerned...

Re:Small problem for Mr. Hu

[BK425]

Jintaos "sole authority" possesses double digit GDP growth and one of the largest populations on earth. Ultimately wether his "grandeur" is delusional or not will depend imho on the Chinese economy. Personally... while I consider myself a US patriot (ducking), -my- 401k has some international picks in it.

Re:Small problem for Mr. Hu

[residents_parking]

Maybe it has something to do with that little firework they shot up a few days ago. How much harder would it be to hit a geostationary altitude?

Re:Small problem for Mr. Hu

[timeOday]

this is something within his power to do.

In fact it's something they're already doing every day. Doing it "better" is certainly in the realm of possibility, especially with the full cooperation of the likes of google, yahoo, and cisco.

Re:Small problem for Mr. Hu

[GrumpySimon]

It's worse than that - this is bait-n-switch. Cleaning up the internet does not mean "stopping innocent Chinese watching perverted porn", it means "we'll pretend to protect your from goatse, but we're really interested in stopping you from seeing all that evil anti-communist propaganda out there".

Re:Small problem for Mr. Hu

[Dragonslicer]

Therefore, to do as he insists, he would have to take control of those servers.

Because no leaders in the governments of any other countries would agree to participate in a similar plan and stick a "Think of the Children!" label on it?

Re:Small problem for Mr. Hu

[Digital Vomit]

In plain English: he's FOS.

He's free open source?

Say what you will about him...

[Irvu]

Hu Jintao knows how to say absolutely nothing and say it well. That sentence is a masterpiece of meaningless airy drivel. You can read it and reread it and there just isn't anything there. Any speechwriter worth his salt should be envious of that hot air.

First great mistake

[Nefarious Wheel]

...is to never get involved in a land war in Asia.

Of course, the internet may soon be bigger than Asia...

Doug in a Dress

[Ace905]

I think it's obvious the entire slashdot community is going to be 'against' this initiative. We all have experience using 'more than average' time on the internet and particularly the world wide web ; it is completely impossible to 'guide' people on the internet.

China would have to have a ginormous amount of 'censors' constantly surfing and updating their own database of acceptable internet sites to have anything close to a 'guidance initiative'. This is just a media spin on what china has been doing all along, blocking major portions of the internet off completely from it's own citizens.

You can see the ridiculous tracert douginadress.com takes to reach chinese citizens right now ; another comment on China's inability to even provide standard censorship

Re:Doug in a Dress

[hackingbear]

``This is just a media spin on what china has been doing all along, blocking major portions of the internet off completely from it's own citizens.'' Not sure if you have been to China personally and surfed there at all. While it is true that many sites have been blocked, mostly oversea Chinese sites, majority of the rest are not, including your comments on slashdot.org

Ho-lee Cree-ap!

[MuChild]

It will be interesting to see if the strict controls that the Chinese government imposes on the internet in order to enforce its wierd ideas and fantasies break the internet.

The sad thing is, eventually, we'll be buying draconian filtering technology back from the Chinese in order to cope with spam. Sigh.

Is the Chinese Constitution a sham?

[amstrad]

From CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Article 35. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.

Article 37. The freedom of person of citizens of the People's Republic of China is inviolable. No citizen may be arrested except with the approval or by decision of a people's procuratorate or by decision of a people's court, and arrests must be made by a public security organ. Unlawful deprivation or restriction of citizens' freedom of person by detention or other means is prohibited; and unlawful search of the person of citizens is prohibited.

Article 39. The home of citizens of the People's Republic of China is inviolable. Unlawful search of, or intrusion into, a citizen's home is prohibited.

Article 40. The freedom and privacy of correspondence of citizens of the People's Republic of China are protected by law. No organization or individual may, on any ground, infringe upon the freedom and privacy of citizens' correspondence except in cases where, to meet the needs of state security or of investigation into criminal offences, public security or procuratorial organs are permitted to censor correspondence in accordance with procedures prescribed by law.

Article 41. Citizens of the People's Republic of China have the right to criticize and make suggestions to any state organ or functionary. Citizens have the right to make to relevant state organs complaints and charges against, or exposures of, violation of the law or dereliction of duty by any state organ or functionary; but fabrication or distortion of facts with the intention of libel or frame-up is prohibited. In case of complaints, charges or exposures made by citizens, the state organ concerned must deal with them in a responsible manner after ascertaining the facts. No one may suppress such complaints, charges and exposures, or retaliate against the citizens making them. Citizens who have suffered losses through infringement of their civil rights by any state organ or functionary have the right to compensation in accordance with the law.

Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham?

[voice_of_all_reason]

See, the Founding Fathers of the US thought of this and wrote up the Constitution to say "This is what the Government CAN do" (Articles) and "This is what they CANNOT do" (Amendments). The last amendment states that any other rights are left to the states to decide, and then reserved by the people.

All of your bolded words (especially "unlawful", used multiple times) can be interpreted by Chinese courts to mean anything, because the Chinese Constitution purposefully spells out rights (grants them) as opposed to saying they are self-evident.

Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham?

[Jerf]

You missed Article 51:

Article 51. The exercise by citizens of the People's Republic of China of their freedoms and rights may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society and of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens.

And guess who decides what interests the state?

For all the bitching about the United States you see on Slashdot, at least our government actually has to try to subvert the Constitution, and we have ways of fighting back. The US Constitution doesn't have an "Oh, and everything we promised you you have, you don't have." escape hatch built in. Technically, we have the exact opposite, whatever our dear Attorney General may think. (The closest thing to an all-purpose escape hatch is the Commerce Clause, and that's not without controversy, nor is it total; the Supreme Court has interpreted it more broadly than I'd like but they have rejected some uses of it.)

Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham?

[Lead Butthead]

Article 35. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.
[SNIP]

As our Führer said, "it's just a ****ing piece of paper."

Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham?

[Hoi Polloi]

I'm thankfull for countries like China. Every time I get disgusted with how the US is run I can look at China and gain some perspective. It could be better but it could also be a lot worse.

Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham?

[bigpat]

You can drive a truck through the exceptions, and so they have.

How many times have you heard some politician in America accuse someone of "distorting the facts"? In China, Article 41, which at first says that people have a right to criticize the government, then goes on to say "but fabrication or distortion of facts with the intention of libel or frame-up is prohibited." This is a much higher bar to political speech than the US has. Can you imagine being practical to criticize an elected official if you had to verify all your facts even to the point of not being allowed any "distortions". Seems reasonable, until you are thrown into Jail because you rounded up the amount and said the national Debt was 9 trillion when really it was just 8.6 trillion, or you get thrown in jail because you are found to exaggerate the amount of corruption or mismanagement in government.

You want a world without negative political campaigns, you go ahead and find it in China. You want a world where people are afraid to speak their minds about their government, go to China.

Just read the whole thing, there is a little something for the authoritarian in everyone.

Look at Article 54, for instance:

Article 54

It is the duty of citizens of the People's Republic of China to safeguard the security, honor and interests of the motherland; they must not commit acts detrimental to the security, honor and interests of the motherland. Even look at the parts you quoted from, such as Article 40 (with the important part bolded):

Article 40. The freedom and privacy of correspondence of citizens of the People's Republic of China are protected by law. No organization or individual may, on any ground, infringe upon the freedom and privacy of citizens' correspondence except in cases where, to meet the needs of state security or of investigation into criminal offenses, public security or procuratorial organs are permitted to censor correspondence in accordance with procedures prescribed by law. So basically, in the guise of devising a legal protection on privacy, the government is given explicit authority to open people's mail "to meet the needs of state security" and to "censor correspondence". The only restriction on censorship is that they follow some sort of standard procedure as defined by a law.

A familiar pattern should emerge, eventually, as you read through the CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA. First it talks about the rights of the people and then it gives the state broad authority to take away those rights to pursue some government interest such as "security" or "public order". In some cases taking away that right must be merely "lawful", so as long as they use some standard form or procedure then just about every so called right is subject to the whims of lawmakers, with no real grounds for judicial review.

Yes, there are some similar exceptions in the US Constitution, which US lawmakers regularly try to take advantage of, just as they do in China. But I do think that the exceptions in the Chinese Constitution are far broader in scope and more powers are explicitly delegated to the government which give it broader authority over people's lives.

Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham?

[edwardpickman]

Where have you been? Here in the good ole US of A we have hundreds perhaps thousands of laws that are blatantly unConstitutional. Virtually all the forfeiture laws related to drug possession and sale are illegal. Many parts of the Homeland Security Act were obviously unConstitutional. The Supreme Court excuses them as being for our own good but the founding fathers made no such exceptions. Rationalizing exceptions to Constitutional Law are very scary in any society. The Supreme Court should not be allowed to change the Constitution through interpretation only the States have the power to change the Constitution.

Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham?

[DragonWriter]

See, the Founding Fathers of the US thought of this and wrote up the Constitution to say "This is what the Government CAN do" (Articles) and "This is what they CANNOT do" (Amendments). The last amendment states that any other rights are left to the states to decide, and then reserved by the people.

Actually, the last amendment to the Constitution says that Congress can't raise its own pay in the middle of a term.

It is even the last ratified of the 11 that have been ratified of the 12 that were originally proposed as the "Bill of Rights".

But, anyhow, the division between "Can" in the original articles and "Can't" in the Amendments is false. There are limitations in the original articles and positive grants of power in the Amendments. The articles are simply the original text of the Constitution that was adopted, the amendments are changes that were ratified later under the procedure in the original text. That's it.

Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham?

[nerdlyone]

Do you think the Chinese constitution actually uses the word "Frame-up"???

Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham?

[pangur]

What one hand gives, the other takes away. From the same link:

Article 1. The People's Republic of China is a socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants. The socialist system is the basic system of the People's Republic of China. Sabotage of the socialist system by any organization or individual is prohibited.

Article 28. The state maintains public order and suppresses treasonable and other counter- revolutionary activities; it penalizes actions that endanger public security and disrupt the socialist economy and other criminal activities, and punishes and reforms criminals.

Article 53. Citizens of the People's Republic of China must abide by the constitution and the law, keep state secrets, protect public property and observe labour discipline and public order and respect social ethics.

I'll leave it to you to decide what constitutes "sabotage of the socialist system", "other counter-revolutionary activities", and observing "labour discipline and public order" means.

Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham?

[The_Rook]

compare

Article 51. The exercise by citizens of the People's Republic of China of their freedoms and rights may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society and of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens.

with the united states constitution tenth amendment.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

perhaps the best way to compare the two constitutions is to say that according to the united states constitution, all rights and powers belong to the people except those specifically reserved for the state while the chinese constitution says that all rights and powers belong to the state except those that are extended to the people.

Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham?

[RAMMS EIN]

``For all the bitching about the United States you see on Slashdot, at least our government actually has to try to subvert the Constitution, and we have ways of fighting back.''

But only terrorists fight the US government!

``The US Constitution doesn't have an "Oh, and everything we promised you you have, you don't have." escape hatch built in.''

But the President does have "constitutional powers" which put him above the law. Well, at least he thinks so and acts like it. Wholesale surveillance of US citizens, while prohibited by the constitution, is ok, because it's in the interest of the state.

Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham?

[lxt518052]

Indeed, the real problem in Chinese legal system is not fixing some sentences in the constitution or making more laws to protect the people. It's far more complex than that. In the past two thousand years before the 1911 revolution, no rule-of-law in the modern sense existed in China. The social order was maintained by categorical monarchy power on top, a complex system of beaucrats in the middle and grass-root family ties at the bottom. Although the ROC established in 1911 and the PRC taking its place in 1949 both have had a few versions of constitutions, the spirit of constitution has never managed to get itself cross to the mass and as a result, governments have never really seriously enforced it.

Aware of the situation, generations of ocial elite have been struggling to build up such rule-of-law tradition in China since the late 19th century. But revolutions, civil wars backed by foreign powers, Japanese invasion sanctions during the cold war and communist blunders of pre-Deng Xiaoping era meant the seed had never got a fair chance to grow. Most part of the 20th century saw China in upheaval. If the same situation had happened in 19-century US for comparably long period, what the founding fathers of America envisioned in the US constitution would not have been realized either.

Now it has been almost 30 years since China has had a chance to focus on improving its people's lives. Dreams of generations are gradually coming true, albeit slowly. Everything complex enough takes time to mature, democracy, rule-of-law tradition, etc... they don't just happen.

Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham?

[Recovering Anonymous]

just wait it's starting to. http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/07/01/24/002 4258.shtml

Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham?

[XchristX]

Ironically, their National Anthem begins with "Arise, Ye who refuse to be slaves!..."

Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham?

[wombatsuit]

Why is it that every insane, abusive, Fahrenheit 451 nation like this has to put PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC in huge flaming letters all over the place like that? Not only does it fail to fool anyone outside said country, its kind of insulting. I'm insulted anyway. Like that Chinese guy a few weeks ago saying they didn't filter the Internet. What!? It just makes him look like a jerk...or an idiot.

Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham?

[freedom_india]

Clinton did it far more aggressively but that was the Echelon program, but he was a liberal so that makes it all better.....I guess.

Read the program at URL given. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON/ Echelon was reportedly used to probe corrupt commercial contracts, which resulted in NSA preventing Airbus from securing a S.Arabia order through corruption.

The TIA so favored by the Bush Administration was an attempt to escalate Echelon for spying on US citizens.

and you should be glad that Bush is your President because he IS keeping your enemies away from you.

What enemies is he keeping away from me? In fact we have now more enemies than before. If Bush had accepted in 2003 all that Iran offered to US about nuclear program, he would not be demanding the same from iran now stupidly thus making it an enemy.

Clinton did NOT open Gitmo to put people silently without due process in to the hellhole.

Clinton did not have an AG who questioned constitution and recommend dictator powers to prez subverting the other two branches.

Clinton did not have a Vice Prez who STILL maintains stock options in oil and defence companies like Halliburton.

Clinton was not an idiot with a double digit IQ.

Look we can go on comparing these two for a long time. Just remember that neocons like you were defeated in these elections [routed must be a better word] because the PEOPLE think the congress need to act with some spine and the prez needs to get lost.

BTW, they also think Bush is doing a lousy job in protecting them more than 73% believe he has increased enemies of US.

So don't spouting that security=bush anymore. It doesn't fly with people and it certainly doesn't fly with me

Have a Good Day.

Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham?

[jez9999]

Oh, come on. That's like being thankful for AIDS when you have a cold. Bull-shit.

Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham?

[jez9999]

Wow, did the supreme court actually come out and say that those laws were unconstitutional, but they were enforcing them anyway? I'd say it isn't legal to do that, but then who do you turn to after those people? Heh. Back to the politicians again?

Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham?

[ragefan]

Ironically, their National Anthem begins with "Arise, Ye who refuse to be slaves!..."

Actually, this is intentional. It's so when a dissenter tries to start a rally, the crowd thinks he's singing the National Anthem and then they join in.
:-)

Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham?

[kabocox]

For all the bitching about the United States you see on Slashdot, at least our government actually has to try to subvert the Constitution, and we have ways of fighting back. The US Constitution doesn't have an "Oh, and everything we promised you you have, you don't have." escape hatch built in. Technically, we have the exact opposite, whatever our dear Attorney General may think.

That just means that your contitution is inferior to the Chinese one from the government point of view. I'm surprised that they haven't slipped an escape all admendment in there at the end.

Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham?

[kabocox]

A familiar pattern should emerge, eventually, as you read through the CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA. First it talks about the rights of the people and then it gives the state broad authority to take away those rights to pursue some government interest such as "security" or "public order". In some cases taking away that right must be merely "lawful", so as long as they use some standard form or procedure then just about every so called right is subject to the whims of lawmakers, with no real grounds for judicial review.

Actually, it sounds better for them than it would for us. As I understand most Asian cultures, they are heavy on the community "correcting" the behavior of those "odd" ones how every "odd" is defined. Most of it all sounds actually o.k. to me. You are told that you can do something and then given a "bounds" not to cross. Our Bill of Rights is really vague and doesn't have any bounds on the individuals. You hear a big up roar whenever the "state" or "government" tries to make some rules defining those bounds a bit better. Take U.S. flag burning. I don't remember if it was currently legal or illegal. I think last time that I checked, the only time a U.S. flag could be legally "burned" was as at politically meeting as a freedom of speech thing. The concept got patriots mad so they illegalized a whole lot of U.S. flag disposal methods that could be viewed as negative. I think its more of difference on East and West and how we come to view things. I'd actually like to read the Chinese view point on such matters. Note: I don't mean the Chinese-American viewpoint as that isn't the same at all. That Chinese-American or Chinese+other nationality has left their homeland so doesn't agree with how they run things. I'd like to hear from those in China if it is bad as slashdot always makes it out to be? Slashdot makes the US to be near a police state sometimes that's not very truthful either. I guess that I just need a source of information better than tradional US public opinion. Public opinion doesn't mean that it is the "right" opinion or that what they have the opinion about is based on any truth.

Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham?

[Hoi Polloi]

No, it is being thankful that you only have a cold and don't have AIDS.

Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham?

[bigpat]

Our Bill of Rights is really vague and doesn't have any bounds on the individuals. You hear a big up roar whenever the "state" or "government" tries to make some rules defining those bounds a bit better. We have different values.

Purifying the internet is all well and good...

[ENOENT]

but who will protect our precious bodily fluids from being impurified?

Paging Gen. Jack D. Ripper!!!

Oh, thats a good one!

[varmittang]

Oh, wait, you weren't kidding. I'm sorry, I wasn't laughing at you, but with you, at yourself.

Hello, Major Strasser

[PHAEDRU5]

"There are certain parts of New York, Major, that I wouldn't advise you to try and invade."

Actually no

[Anonymous Coward]

If you didn't buy "Made in China", the Chinese economy would suck. Nobody would be able to afford computers and they won't have access to any sort of information. Only the information printed on the local propaganda newpaper or the (propaganda) radio. With an advanced economy people have computers which they can use to educate themselves and get past the Chinese petty little "censorship" efforts. Do you really think the Chinese govt. can even have mediocre success in censoring? It's all talk.
Also by buying Made In China you build a nation of consumers who need services from the US (airplanes, farm equipment, high tech stuff). Even China wouldn't have the needed workers to sustain an developed modern economy .. because there physically aren't enough workers. So that would benefit both countries and other countries in the world. This will continue until automation helps reduce the number of hours people need to work (and people will be paid more as they work less because the amount of work needed to afford a good lifestyle would be reduced).

Re:Actually no

[Em Adespoton]

This will continue until automation helps reduce the number of hours people need to work (and people will be paid more as they work less because the amount of work needed to afford a good lifestyle would be reduced).

Ah yes... 1950's optimism... with the advent of the automatic dishwasher, laundry machines, improved automobiles, etc. people will no longer have to work 8 hour days! What's that? 50 years have passed and you work an 8.5 hour day now? You can't work an 8 hour day because then you won't be competitive with the people working 8.5 hour days, and you won't be able to keep a job to support yourself? How is that possible, when you live in a country with such a massive food surplus?

I find it interesting...

[clragon]

that things disregarded by most Chinese as simply propaganda will make the headlines of the western press...

Re:I find it interesting...

[Dr. Eggman]

It happens because western propaganda strives to instill the feeling of exceptionalism in its citizens hearts which, in effect, deafens the citizens to the government atrocities in foriegn affairs.

Overt Chinese propaganda becomes subtle American propaganda.

China had to learn from North Korea & Cuba?

[us7892]

From wikipedia, In December 2004, the Hong Kong magazine Open quoted an alleged instruction by Hu to propaganda officials in September in which he wrote that, when managing ideology, China had to learn from Cuba and North Korea. Although North Korea had encountered "temporary economic problems", its political policies were "consistently correct". Open also quoted Hu as calling Mikhail Gorbachev, "a betrayer of socialism".

Well, that doesn't sound too good. And he wants to "purify" the internet.

Another interesting summary on wiki of his "Eight Do's and Dont's", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba_rong_ba_chi

Number Eight is interesting, "Regard plain living and hard struggle as an honour, regard living in luxury as a shame."

Perhaps he needs a number nine, which reads something like "Regard the internet as a backward Western evil, filled with filthy images and make-believe."

Re:China had to learn from North Korea & Cuba?

[drinkypoo]

Incidentally, except for point #1, those all sound like tenets of some various religions. In particular it reminds me of the Amish.

Re:China had to learn from North Korea & Cuba?

[mldqj]

Number Eight is interesting, "Regard plain living and hard struggle as an honour, regard living in luxury as a shame."

As a Chinese, I think I should point out that this seems laughable only because of poor translation, although I don't know how to properly translate it either.

Re:China had to learn from North Korea & Cuba?

[DigiShaman]

Maybe it means more along the lines of "Take honor in your hard work for society and yourself. Do not be slothful (lazy and parasitic on resources)"

Would that be closer to its meaning?

I wonder...

[__aaclcg7560]

...thus civilizing and purifying the internet environment.

So the Chinese are suggesting that the 2008 American Presidential Race be banned from the Internet?

Sounds like a Marketing guy

[sizzzzlerz]

He proposes to do this by maintaining "the initiative in opinion" on the internet and to "'raise the level guidance on the internet," thus civilizing and purifying the internet environment.

Straight outta pre-bubble 2000 sales hype for some dot-com. Yup, China is advancing far faster than we could have ever believed.

Re:Sounds like a Marketing guy

[SeaFox]

I thought it was a Google translation of what he actually said.

Purifying the Net

[HunahpuMonkey]

Thank God! We need less memory leaks.

"Purify"

[Joebert]

Why is it that we can't just immediately nuke anyone that vows to "purify" again ?

Re:"Purify"

[Improv]

That certainly would purify things :O

Re:"Purify"

[kitsunewarlock]

Yeah, nukes aren't messy at all.

Who, or When?

[Pfhorrest]

No, not How, When. When Jiabao is gonna purify humanity while Who Jintao does the same for the internet :-)

Excel Saga anyone?

[kitsunewarlock]

"Secrecy is the art of hiding unbeknownst information from people." ~Il Palazzo, Vol 1, Ch 1, Excel Saga

Obligatory /. comment

[v912485]

I for one welcome our internet purifying overlords!

TFA said nothing

[grumpyman]

TFA has absolutely no context and everybody just can't wait to pitch in their brilliant 2 cents on 'purification', state control, philosophy in life...etc. Anybody bother to check what is he referring to? TFA is atypical Chinese government bashing rhetoric. I have no problem bashing them, but FFS in what context does he meant by purifying? What if the context is 'kiddie porn', 'online crack sale', WTF is it??? Network virus? Zombie bots?? DOS attack????

Every time there's this knee-jerk, robotic reaction I totally don't get. Believe in what you WANT TO believe in. In this case, there's no FA to read.

Reminds me a lot of a certain Sci-Fi book.

[Lead Butthead]

Hu Jintao knows how to say absolutely nothing and say it well. That sentence is a masterpiece of meaningless airy drivel. You can read it and reread it and there just isn't anything there. Any speechwriter worth his salt should be envious of that hot air.

So in the end everything cancelled out. Absolutely nothing was said or reassured.

It's surely not unique in Chinese history

[DuBois]

The first Chin Emperor (Qin in modern romanization), ZHENG Ying (259-210BC), gave his Dynasty's name to the entire country of China. He burned all the books in the country and banned scholarly discussion of history. Sounds a lot like the current Emperor is just doing what a Chinese Emperor normally does. And that might explain why the Chinese people, whose sense of history extends far further back than most Westerners', tolerate his continued rule. A sense of "unity" for all of China comes from the Emperor. See the modern movie "Hero" for one take on this facet of Chinese culture.

He also changed his name to Shi Huangdi, meaning "First August God". This is certainly nothing that the current Emperor would ever deign to do.

Re:It's surely not unique in Chinese history

[lxt518052]

I don't think the undertone in Hero could represent the main stream. In fact, the director Zhang Yimou has been widely criticized for whitewashing for a tyrant. The film actually has become a laugh stalk for its ridiculous plot.

As for Qin Shihuang (another name for Shi Huangdi), most of your comment are correct, except that Zheng was his given name and YING was the surname. He certainly was an influential figure and events related to him did change the course of history. But mind you it was two thousand years ago. A lot of equally important (if not more important) events happened afterwards. Simply attributing everything today to a man died more than 2000 years ago is very much over-simplification, if not totally wrong.

Re:It's surely not unique in Chinese history

[Praseodymn]

Sense of history, maybe. Age of culture? Never. Granted, I'm an expat, so my views don't count for much. But to me, the majority China's (that I've seen at least) culture feels very young. Their quick and unquestioning acceptance of what the government tells them to think (read: Japan), their baby-like popular culture, and often childlike squabbling over blame and fault. Dare I mention the fact that a great majority of the youth spend all hours of the night playing video games in MASSIVE internet cafes?
Certainly, they have pride in and know about the ancienty of the land, but I often feel there is a srong and obvious disconnect.

As for the article, the PRC's attempts at Internet censorship merely add up to an annoyance. Anyone who has a slight understanding of proxies can easily get around most of its effects. As with any announcement from the PRC, grain of salt in whether they'll actually accomplish anything.

Re:It's surely not unique in Chinese history

[jandersen]

He also changed his name to Shi Huangdi, meaning "First August God"

To quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi_Huangdi:

he created a new title, huangdi, combining the word huang from the legendary Three Huang (Three August Ones) who ruled at the dawn of Chinese history, and the word di from the legendary Five Di (Five Sovereigns) who ruled immediately after the Three Huang

His original name was Qin Shihuang, and it is a simple, but clever trick when he invents the title 'Huangdi' (~'emperor') and changes his name to Shi Huangdi, which was almost hist name before. If you want to look it up yourself, try this online dictionary: http://www.zhongwen.com/noads.htm.

Apart from that, I find you opinion absurd. The Chinese don't 'tolerate' Hu Jintao and the Communist Party because they are 'culturally conditioned' or whatever. The simply like what they see around them, in general: increased wealth, increased status in the world etc etc. They want more of it - wouldn't you? Don't tell me that Americans would choose freedom over wealth and progress any time. And calling the Chinese president an 'emperor' is simply childish name-calling and just goes to show that you don't have anything else to have your opinion in.

Re:It's surely not unique in Chinese history

[silentounce]

That is where the name "China" comes from for the West. They call themselves Chung-kuo, literally, "the Middle Kingdom."

Re:It's surely not unique in Chinese history

[sp3d2orbit]

Don't tell me that Americans would choose freedom over wealth and progress any time.

American history is founded in choosing freedom over wealth. In rejecting British Imperialism, Americans effectively cut themselves off from the comforts and wealth of Great Britain's enormous trading empire.

During the American Civil war, 150,000 northern soldiers wealth and life to free the southern slaves.

Before both World War I and World War II the United States voluntarily stopped trading with the non-democratic aggressors.

In present times the United States has foresaken (relatively small) amounts of wealth to promote freedom in portions of Africa and Asia the Middle East. This is something China cannot say, as they continue to pour money into North Korea, Iran, and Sudan.

"Give me liberty or give me death."

Re:It's surely not unique in Chinese history

[jandersen]

History is a long time ago - this is like saying 'WE freed Europe from Hitler' like many Americans said a few years ago when France didn't fall for the transparent lies about Iraq; which apart from being historically incorrect is also disingenious. For one thing, it was not this present generation of Americans who went to Europe during WWII, and then only with considerable reluctance, after it was clear that it wouldn't be more opportune to support Hitler.

And don't talk to me about America giving up wealth to help freedom and democracy. The US is giving comparatively little in aid, and most of that goes to Israel in the form of weapons as far as I know. And what little actually reaches poor countries in Africa and other places is richly rewarded because it always comes with strings attached, such as 'Open your markets for American companies so they can suck you dry'.

Business Opportunity

[mudshark]

From: Chmn Hu Jintao
Date: Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:53 PM
Subject: PURIFICATION CAMPAIGN

Chmn Hu Jintao

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am fine today and how are you? I hope this letter will find you in the best of health. I am Chmn Hu Jintao, the Chairman of the "Communist Party" and the "Fifth Civilization Marching Forward Into the Millenium (FCMFIM)", a subsidiary of the "PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA (PRC)".

The Fifth Civilization Marching Forward Into the Millenium (FCMFIM) was set up by the late Head of State, Chmn Mao Zedong who died on 9 September 1976, to manage the excess revenue accruing from the electronic commerce and its allied products as a domestic increase in the campaign to purify the internet environment. The estimated annual revenue for 2005 was $45 Billion US Dollars Ref. FMF A26 Unit 3B Paragraph "D" of the Auditor General of the People's Republic of China Report of Nov. 2006 on estimated revenue.

I am the Chairman of the Contract Award Committee, and my committee is solely responsible for awaiting and paying of contracts on behalf of the People's Republic of China. My Committee awarded Contracts to foreign contractors for Vigorous Purification By One Hand Grasping Matters in the cheap plastic consumer goods producing areas of Sichuan. We overshot the contract sum by US$25,000,000.00. We have paid the contractors and withholding the balance of US$25,000,000.00. But, because of the existence of some of the domestic laws forbidding civil servants in PR from opening, operating and maintaining foreign accounts, we do not have the expertise to transfer this balance of fund to a foreign account.

However, this balance of US$25,000,000.00 has been secured in form of Credit/Payment to a foreign contractor, hence we wish to transfer into your bank account as the beneficiary of the fund. We have also arrived at a conclusion that you will be given 20% of the total sum transferred as our foreign partner, while 5% will be reserved for incidental expenses that both parties will incur in the course of actualizing this transaction, and the balance of 75% will be kept for the committee members.

If you know that you will be capable of helping us actualize this transaction, you should send to me immediately the details of your bank particulars or open a new bank account where we can transfer the money US$25,000, 000.00, which you will be holding in trust for us until we come to your country for our share. Your nature of business does not matter in this transaction. The required details includes your company's name, address, your private personal telephone/fax numbers, your full name and address, including your complete bank details where the transferred fund will be routed by the Shengdong Bank.

Note that this transaction is expected to be actualized within 21 working days from the day the required details are forwarded to the People's Ministry of Finance who will approve the needed foreign exchange control allocation for the release of this money to your account. Please, treat this as top secret. You should contact me urgently.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Yours RESPECTFULLY,

Chmn Hu Jintao

It's going to involve a lot of murder

[Anonymous Coward]

Starting with me. Because he'll have to pry my porn from my cold, dead hands.

Re:It's going to involve a lot of murder

[HBI]

Because he'll have to pry my porn from my cold, dead hands.

You forgot 'sticky'.

Want 1950's conditions then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but because of the washing machine I don't need to spend that half hour washing clothes. Also, If I was willing to have a 1950's quality of life (no cable tv or internet) and still get better health care (improved life expectancy and infant mortality rate) I can only work 8 hours a day. It means having to give up wearing designer clothes and opt for $30 shoes instead of $100 ones. Oh yeah I'll have to give up my cell phone, cook food at home more, and eat out less.

I think a 1950's middle class lifestyle can be had by working less than 8 hours a day. It'd just be considered poverty today.

Defending fascism?

[Hoi Polloi]

Fascists never tried to control the media? What was Goebbels doing then? A talk show? Or Mussolini, or Franco for that matter. You seem to be taking this right vs left obsession a bit too far.

I think the term you want is "authoritarianism". The desire to totally control others is truly egalitarian. It is not restricted to any race, creed, religion, class, or political ideology.

Flame on!

[iminplaya]

Wanna "purify" and bring civility back to the net?
Then cut off AOL's access.
Hee Hee Hee.

First Amendment

[akaina]

So Hu is on the First?

Fascism .... yay!!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's still why I think Bolshevism* and its sequelae are more insidious than fascism: sure, the fascists will shoot you if you agitate against them.... According to my uncle who got arrested by the Nazis for the abominable crime of being a Social Democrat and who was subsequently shipped off to the KZ camps; fascists will do more than just shoot you. They are quite innovative and enterprising people. They'll arrest you and confiscate all your possessions, assessing the value of even the most worthless objects with nauseating meticulousness before auctioning them off. Then they will torture you. When the torturers are done with you you'll be hauled into a court room where you will be screamed at by an idiot judge in a kangaroo trial where the only sentence ever passed is death. Your defense lawyer will not open his mouth even once during the 20 minutes or so the trial lasts except perhaps to yawn. Once you have been sentenced things start to get interesting because you now have the choice of several fascinating and miserable ways to die. You might for example be of use to the state as a participant in a perverse medical experiment. Another popular option is gassing you and having your corpse processed into fertilizer. If you have a valuable skill or education that can be put to practical use you may also be lucky enough to suffer a slow death by a combination of starvation and being worked to death that is if you don't get your head blown off first by a passing storm-trooper because who doesn't like the squeak your shoes make. If you are a good looking female you might even have end up in an army brothel servicing 20 stinking soldiers every day, 7 days a week until you are so broken down and unappetizing that management decides to have you put down with a pistol shot to the neck. Come to think of it the list of ways a fascist regime might decide to kill you is in near endless.....

Choosing between extreme right and left wing politics, i.e. Stalinism and Fascism is choosing between bad and worse. Id say that Fascism is still worse although thanks to North Korea the margin is getting rather slim.

China's tubes users set to outnumber US in 2 yrs

[PoliTech]

With China's internet users set to outnumber US users in two years, why wouldn't they wan't to control the whole enchilada? http://rawstory.com/news/2006/China_internet_users _to_overtake_US_01232007.html/

C'mon now...

[General Lee's Peking]

Am I the only who's seen this and immediately thought of the slashdot moderators?

Re:C'mon now...

[HexRei]

The difference being that Slashdot is not a government. You can use another news site if you don't like Slashdot's policies and decisions. China doesn't allow most citizens to leave the country freely.

An Open Letter to Hu Jintao

[superdan2k]

Dear Sir,

Please be advised of an old adage we have here in America: it's like herding cats.

In short: good fucking luck. You'll need it.

Sincerely,
Me

To who's moral standard?

[ronrib]

"purify the internet environment" to who's moral standard? Maybe we need an Open Moral Standard?

Root cause...

[Dr.Who]

He is just pissed that he responded to an "I Love You" e-mail virus

Politicians full of shit. News at 11.

[gsn]

Wow there is a lot of anti-China rhetoric out here. Sure I hate the great firewall as much as the next /.ter but...

How is this any different than local efforts to purify the internet like segregating the dirty pics into .xxx domains, Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), DOPA, banning online gambling...

You can find out all about international efforts to purify the net here. And its already outdated.

Every politician will talk about purifying the internet, making it safe for you and your children because most people have a knee jerk reaction, and it distracts from real issues.

Re:Politicians full of shit. News at 11.

[timmarhy]

you have no fucking clue just how nuts the chinese are. visit sometime and you will see. seriously how can you compare a sensible idea like having all porn on a .xxx domain to giving people jail time for posting discenting views on a blog?

From all of us here at Slashdot

[KingKiki217]

Good luck with that.

permissions

[binarybum]

fine, but he has to ask Al Gore first.

What does this mean?

[walterbyrd]

I don't speak Chiness, or bureaucratess. I can not make sense out this statement:

> He proposes to do this by maintaining "the initiative in opinion" on the internet and to "'raise the level guidance on the internet," thus civilizing and purifying the internet environment.

Does this mean WDS, and EDS, up the wahzoo? Are they looking to filter porn, or subversive ideas, or both?

Hu Jintao to "purify the internet environment"

[turly]

Laugh? I nearly bought a round.

Translation

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

Hu Jintao today announced the intent to leverage the economic potential of the web while seeking to "purify the internet environment". He proposes to do this by maintaining "the initiative in opinion" on the internet and to "raise the level guidance on the internet," thus civilizing and purifying the internet environment. [and also] "Ensure that one hand grasps development while one hand grasps administration,"

For those unfamiliar with this sort of rhetoric, I offer this translation from Politburospeak to English:

Hu: seeking to "purify the internet environment
English: Pr0n is for Politburo members and senior Party officials only.

Hu: leverage the economic potential of the web
English: Profit

Hu: maintaining "the initiative in opinion"
English: Crushing censorship

Hu: raise the level guidance on the internet
English: Crushing censorship plus jail time for trying to evade it.

Hu: civilizing and purifying the internet environment
English: Anbiguous; could mean either, crushing censorship, pr0n is for Politburo members and senior Party officials only, or both.

Hu: Ensure that one hand grasps development
English: Profit

Hu: while one hand grasps administration
English: pr0n is for Politburo members and senior Party officials only

Chinese purification: death warrant rifle girl

[gd23ka]

Going from the clip's English description this young girl was possibly executed for
being a prostitute and without a trial. I doubt she didn't get some sort of a trial
because regimes like China thrive on formalities but hey: No matter what she did...
she didn't deserve this.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-456338553 7548917870

To be fair you might not want to see it, the execution by rifle shown in the clip is
extremely graphic and they show a close-up of her head half of which is missing.

Why do we afford scumsucking regimes like China "Most Favored Nation" status??!

Thank God!

[rmckeethen]

Maybe the Chinese government can start the 'purifying' job by eliminating all that SPAM comming out of China? Somehow, millions of email ads for Viagra flying through Chinese email servers just doesn't have that pure, fresh feeling I expect from a Communist dictatorship... ;-)

OT, but what the hey...

[Mr. Mikey]

It truly mystifies me that some people can believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old, or that there was a worldwide flood from which two of "every animal" were rescued by riding it out in a giant ark, or that all humans are descended from two humans (and the genetic bottleneck presented by the few humans who survived the aforementioned flood).

Honestly, I don't see how one can look at our modern understandings of physics, chemistry, geology, biology, astronomy, etc., and still believe that these events actually happened.

In short, how do you reconcile your beliefs with modern knowledge and evidence?

better get out his bucket and mop

[wardk]

and start scrubbing

Simple Explanation

[rlp]

China's building a giant pipe-cleaner in order to clean out the series of tubes. But they won't need a truck wash.

You knew it was coming...

[DreamCoder]

The internet is now the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face.

Star Wars quote needed

[EmperorKagato]

From TA "Hu stressed the need to exploit the net's possibilities, while keeping a tight grip. "Ensure that one hand grasps development while one hand grasps administration," he concluded."

The more you tighten your grip Secretary, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers. ~~ Modded quote from Princes Leia (Star Wars Episode IV)

like tibet?

[peektwice]

Are they going to purify it like they are trying to purify Tibet? On a separate note, I like the Internet more as the Wild West.

this is called: 'red baiting'

[BatMacumba]

Here is the wikipedia explanation. -Sigh- I don't know if people in countries other than the U.S. have been innoculated with continuous fetus-to-grave anti-communist/marxist propagana like we have. It is very droll.

Chinese Purification of the Net

[HermMunster]

Chinese purification of the net is like shitting in the drinking water. Nothing they can do will affect it but for the worse and they will be the ones responsible for making the mess. Those in charge over in China must have sick minds if they think they can rule the net and determine what is clean and what isn't. Pathetic is all I can say.

Can't purify the Human Race

[Anonymous Coward]

The Internet is made by people.
From Teenagers to Big Business, the best and the worst of human behavior is digitally displayed for all the world.

Don't blame the system, it shows life as it is,
not some idealist utopia.

Perhaps researchers of human behavior can learn more about how people really behave
in our modern world.

There are those who do try to purify the human race,
but they are known as war criminals,
the worst of all crimes,
destroying humanity and free will, in the name of government or religion.

Re:Can't purify the Human Race

[beckerist]

I wish you hadn't posted A/C, I would definitely add you as a friend right now.

If you read the TFA...

[MidnightBrewer]

You'll see that the comments made by the Chinese government were only in regards to the Chinese internet community, and that the "purification" referred to making it easier to administer and develop the financial potential of the Chinese internet. This entire post is sensationalistic nonsense that glosses over the more boring bits of reality in order to make a mountain over a molehill.

China Bounder

[TheoMurpse]

Hu is probably just trying to find a reason to take down China Bounder's blog about his sex adventures with Chinese women. He pissed off a lot of people, some very powerful. After all, Chinese women are so innocent, and this dirty foreigner is corrupting them!

In other so far unreported comments he said

[Budenny]

From TA: "Hu stressed the need to exploit the net's possibilities, while keeping a tight grip. "Ensure that one hand grasps development while one hand grasps administration," he concluded."

In other unreported comments he went on to explain China's new computer initiative involving Linux and the new Chinese made and developed hardware. He said that his remarks applied equally to the new smart phone due to be released at the Beijing summer IT fair.

"It is exactly the same", he said "ensure also that one hand grasps hardware while the other grasps the OS. This way all users are given full integrated experience and can exploit potential of modern computer science to maximum without distraction from driver problem.

"Ensure one hand grasps phone network while other hand grasps mobile appliance. Only so can stability of both be assured and West China networks kept immune from crashes.

"Ensure also one hand around throat of developers and other around phone application environment. So can help users avoid distraction by non optimally working applications not authorized by Party.

"In coming weeks will be propounding further on four principles of making happy users and clean and healthy computing and phoning environment: protect OS, protect hardware, protect applications, protect networks. Trust in Party."

I am very surprised these inspiring comments, which will alas strike a chord with only one or two Western computing and mobile phone companies, and which are a devastating if tactful correction to the whole Open Source movement, failed to find their way into the press.

Seek guidance from the masters

[sean4u]

They said: Hu2's house? Ren2's house!

Since no one else is going to say it....

[unitron]

Chinese Official Vows to "Purify" the Net

Rots of ruck!

USA Communism and now Freedom

[frsmith]

Doesn't it worry the US that with all the money poring into the US from China, to bolster credit card spending and such, that This country will eventually own you.
I know the USA doesn't see the Deficit as a problem but if chine can control your economy it controls the country.
What happens when they want to purify the USA? Cheers Bob

And what about the Olympic Games?

[master_p]

Shouldn't the Olympics of 2008 be boycotted just like the Olympics of 1980? China has done far worse things to the people and environment than Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan.

Re:And what about the Olympic Games?

[jez9999]

Yes, but they're much better at PR.

Put down that crack pipe, your Mommy's calling

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you step ALL the way back to Marx's day, it's fairly clear that he was right.

Clear to who? A sheltered, pampered useful idiot?

Marx viewed economics as a zero-sum game. That fundamental problem makes all his theories as utterly worthless as tits on a bull. Or posts from an ignorant college twerp who has never been responsible for anything his entire worthless life and worships Castro's executioner.

Care to tally up how many millions of people have been murdered in the name of Marx in the past 150 years or so?

To quote Ronald Reagan: "A Communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-Communist is one who understands Marx."

Re:Put down that crack pipe, your Mommy's calling

[cyber-vandal]

Care to let us know how many millions died in the name of Marx? None at a guess, since he never actually ruled any countries, nor made war on anyone else.
And quoting a half-senile ex-actor to make your point - whatever. If socialism failed why are we not still working in death trap factories and dying at 40 of cholera? Or do you think the rich folks just all one day decided not to be such arseholes and handed large amounts of taxes to the government to help those poor folks out?

That's nothing

[o'reor]

because every time you fill up your gas tank, you put more money into Saudi and Iranian pockets, and you end up subsidizing Al Qaeda, Hizb'Allah and Hamas. And the more you go gas-guzzling, the higher the Brent goes, and the more money they have to pursue their criminal projects.

Of course, it would probably be easier if your politicians were not so tightly related to the big oil companies, but that's another story. Or is it ?

And mod me down all you like, I have plenty of karma to burn. Burning karma does not produce greenhouse gases :-)

Re:That's nothing

[o'reor]

I don't. Of course it is most obvious in the US politics (particularly with the Bush/Cheney government), but in most of the countries with at least one major oil company (UK with BP, France with TOTAL, the Netherlands with Shell) I seriously doubt that no oil-funded lobbyist ever tries to influence politicians...

Re:Murdering for Marx, a tale for a *useless* idio

[cyber-vandal]

I don't see Marx on that list, do you?

Re:Fundamental inherent rights of man

[Lord Bitman]

oops. I guess he<strike> didn't read that far</strike>'s an insane dumbass.

Actually, I can't imagine how someone in his position could say such things with sincerity. That is, I must assume he has at some point in his life read the constitution. There was probably a quiz on it in Attorney General class or something, and it won't all fit on your hand.
And I can't imagine someone honestly thinking "The government shall not attempt to take away this particular right" does not imply that the right exists in the first place.

I propose an ammendment forbidding the government from taking away my trained unicorn.

Re:Perhaps time is up to severe my connection?

[beckerist]

In a way, I view China as a giant "Matrix." The only difference being that the participants are AWARE of their situation, but either don't care (ie: they are happy) or don't know how to change it. It's in this utter control of all external stimulus that China is able to "censor." I don't mean the physical act of censoring, but simply by providing access to only stimulation that betters China, as opposed to allowing a freedom of information. The "ideological spam" you are referring to is the perfect example to what I was thinking when I wrote the above post. Thank you for your clarification.