China's New Internet Plan

eldavojohn writes "The internet in China is diverging rapidly from the state that the rest of the world enjoys it. Recent news of China's leader, Hu Jintao, has revealed a strategy to distort it even further. Jintao is tackling the issue his Communist party is having with the youth of China that are too young to remember Chairman Mao and the fanaticism the populace had for him. A strategy he is proposing is 'cleaning up' China's internet & lacing it with a little propaganda like the need to 'Consolidate the guiding status of Marxism in the ideological sphere' online. The meeting notes also declared that 'Development and administration of Internet culture must stick to the direction of socialist advanced culture, adhere to correct propaganda guidance.'"

Comments

Re:Fear is the Mind Killer

[SQL Error]

You're talking about a country where an elected leader can be sacked for getting head

Really? What country is that? Little tip: Clinton was impeached; he was not removed from office.

but an unelected leader can't be prised from the grip of power with a shoe-horn made of righteous indignation millions strong.

Again, a little tip: Bush was elected. Twice. You may not like it, but that's how it is, under the rules set out in the Constitution. Indignation, righteous or otherwise, is completely irrelevant. And come January 2009, he is gone.

Are you sure the contrast is as stark as you're suggesting?

More stark, if anything.

Ah, real life Abbott and Costello classics...

[Bazman]

A: Who is the Chinese President?
C: Yes.
A: Who?
C: I told you.
A: When?
C: Wen is the Premier.
A: When is the Premier what?
C: The Premier of China.
A: Who is the Premier?
C: No, Hu is the President!
A: That's what I wanna know!

and so on...

Re:So the chinese can't read this article

[VendettaMF]

And yet I just read them all and am replying to them from Shenyang, Liaoning, China.

It ain't so cut and dried.

Re:Human Nature

[Red Flayer]

follows capitalism, in which people who work hard and make good choices are rewarded while the lazy and stupid are not.

That's not an accurate description of capitalism at all. Capitalism doesn't reward those who work hard; it rewards those who have money to work hard for them. Capitalism doesn't reward those who make good choices, it rewards those who make choices that are good within a restricted value set. That value set includes wealth accumulation, which is of debateable value. It's a tautology to say that capitalism rewards those who make good choices, since the choices you are referring to are only 'good' because of the capitalist system they are made in.

True communism, for example, rewards those who work hard and make good choices as well. How? Their society benefits, so the individual does as well. Marxist Communism also rewards those who work hard and make good choices -- the difference being that choices are made by a group, rather than an individual.

I don't think you'll ever be able to grasp the concept of Communism until you let go of the primacy of personal wealth accumulation. For example,

"class struggle" (code for wealth envy)

Class struggle isn't about wealth envy, it's about self-determinism. In a pure capitalist society, wealth outweighs or defines all other factors of self-determinism (education, access to influence, etc).

Sometimes the lazy and stupid wind up rich (think about the rich liberal living-on-trust-fund brat denizens of the Hamptons)

What about the rich conservative living-on-trust-fund brat denizens of Houston? Your bias is very clear, and subtracts from your logic.

Capitalism isn't designed to cure all problems. It's merely that which exists without government intervention,

Not so. Cooperation (the basis of communism) happens without government intervention -- capitalism is a system dependent upon a stable money supply, which does not exist without government interference. One could say that totalitarianism is what is most likely to happen without government intervention -- but then at what point is the totalitarian become the government?

government intervention, which always creates more problems than it solves (and it never solves anything).

Well, that's just wrong, as most absolutes are. It's a pithy saying based on faith that has few foundations in fact or in theory. Government intervention can solve the tragedy of the commons, for example. Sure, governments can (and often do!) intervene poorly, but that's a matter of execution, not of a theoretical impossibility of positive interference. If you reduce government to its most basic level (that of the family), would you still argue that interference by the decision-makers cannot solve problems?

By the way, did Marx ever define what a "class" was?

Yes, he did -- and the tendency for those not to have studied what he wrote is to not be able to make sense of his class distinctions, since they are not defined by wealth, as classes are defined under capitalism. Instead they are defined by their relationship to the means of production. Here's a primer for you, so you can get a basic view of how the "middle class" fits into Marxist theory.

I'm not a communist, but I think it's important to understand the communist point of view if I want to have a meaningful discussion of capitalism. It's also important to understand basic theories of government, and the differences between economic systems from political systems, as well as how they interrelate.