Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Chinese civilization. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

For earlier material see Talk:China/old, Talk: China (Archive 1) and Talk: China (Archive 2) Talk: China (Archive 3)

Who moved People's Republic of China to China ani why ? That's very inapropriate. Taw 21:02 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

I forget his name, he was a sysop, since retired. My impression was that the purpose was to establish that there was one China and that the People's Republic was it. There was an extended debate, and this organization of the articles on China was established. I would rather we went back to the old origanization which permitted both an extensive article on the People's Republic and on China (with substantial sections on history, culture and geography and other areas independent of matters relevant to the current political regime). Fred Bauder 13:06 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

I'll settle on Communist Party-led state to stifle this excruciatingly dull debate, but never on classifying China as a government-type which does not exist.

If the China article remains calling China a "socialist state", I’m going to insist that the Sweden article refer to a government-type known as the "socialist monarchy."

Im somewhat bothered by the Jtdirls response to my suggestion that we refer to China merely as a nation, without defining what sort of nation (socialist, republican, communist, totalitarian, democratic) China is. I think it is inappropriate to respond in the manner which he did. That said, I am still wondering why we do not just refer to China as a nation. Does China claim to not be a nation? Obviously there is dispute over whether China is communist, and thus we cannot authoritatively say whether China is truly communist, or not. Shino Baku

Shino, the issue of nations is much more complicated than you realise. Some states are nations (ie, nation states). A state is not always a nation. A nation (eg, the Kurds) does not always have a state. Some states are made up of many nations (eg the United Kingdom, involving the English nation, Scottish nation, Welsh nation, Irish nationalists, unionists, some see Cornwall as a nation). A lot of states are a nighthmare to categorise because people differ over whether the state is one or many nations; eg Spain. Are the Basques a nation or part of the Spanish nation? In Italy, some say Sardinia and Sicily are nations, others think that claim nonsense. In France, some think Brittany and Corsica as well as other regions are nations. Others say there is only one French nation. And there are three linguistic groups in Belgium, two of whom at least think of themselves as nations within a state, with some desiring to become a nation-state (ie, break away from Belgium altogether and become a new state. Similarly, Canada has two nations. China is a state but there are differing arguments as to whether China is one nation or a state made up of a couple of nations. So 'nation' is a proverbial hornet's nest that could provoke the mother of all edit wars.

In addition, the definition we are arguing about is in terms of how to categorise a state and its system of government. Nation is never used as part of a category. We don't say the Netherlands is a nation, we say it is a constitutional monarchy. We don't say the United States is a nation, we say it is a federal republic, etc. It is into which of those types of categories China belongs that we are arguing about. Communist state is one such category in that encyclopædic list. Nation isn't. It is a category, but on a different type of list that does not deal with systems of governments And again, we are not arguing whether China is truly communist; that is a debate about political culture. We are dealing with governmental system. Communist state does not mean 100% communist, it means a specific system of government centred on a one party state (or one in which one party is overwhelmingly dominant) in which a party which proclaims itself communist produces a governmental system in which the state and the party are embedded in each other. ÉÍREman 00:29 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

Yet again Sirub, you continue to misunderstand the point I and 172 have been making over and over and over and over again. We are talking about a formal encyclopædic definition, not an analysis of the nature of the political system. There is no such thing as a FEC called 'socialist state'. China's political system may be classed by some as a socialist state, but that is a generalised assessment of the nature of Chinese politics. But we are talking are talking simply about the formal category, repeat formal category, nothing more. 'Socialist' is an alward title because it means something different to US-based political scientists (who view it as far left), to northern Europeans (who view it as a form of social democracy), to southern Europeans (whose understanding of the term differs in Spain, Portugal and Italy), to Eastern Europe (where it is seen as everything from social democrat to moderate communist) to different parts of Africa (where it veers between hard left to middle of the road). Some see Tony Blair as a socialist, others call him a social democrat and call Tony Benn a socialist. Some called Francois Mitterand a socialist, others a number of different terms. Some think Gorbachev a socialist, others don't. So 'socialist state' means almost anything or nothing depending on whether the wiki reader comes from a British political culture background, a US political culture background, a French political culture background, a South African political culture background, an Australian political culture background, an Eastern European political culture background, an Asian political culture background etc. THAT is why no such universal term exists and why as a formal encyclopædic definition it is not used.

In addition it tells us nothing about the system of government, which is what a formal encyclopædic definition is supposed to do. Communist state does. It tells us that it is a left wing one party system in which the state and the party are embedded in each other, in which power resides not in the state institutions (the norm in liberal democracies) but in the party, with party officials who in reality may not hold state office holding power in a manner that would be restricted to a state office holder in a liberal democracy. 'That is what is meant by communist state; nothing more, nothing less, and 'socialist state' doesn't clarify whether it is a one-party or multiparty system let alone the relationship between party and state institutions. There is a narrow range of formal encyclopædic definitions for states; from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy/popular monarchy, federation, confederation, federal republic, etc. Communist state features on that list as a formal type of state. Socialist state does not.

By all means debate the nature of the political system and how communistic or socialistic or any other -istic Chinese politics is. But that is not what we are discussing. We are talking simply about a formal encyclopædic definition (also called a formal governmental categorisation, slotting in the description of the constitutional system into a known category. It is pain having to constantly repeat this. Everytime it is repeated you come back, completely miss the point and start arguing about classifications of the politics of China. Then it is repeated again that we are discussing the formal encycloædic definition or classification, and you come back, go off on another tangent again about classifications of the politics of China. Please please please understand the issue being discussed and stop going off into debates to do with an analysis of the system of politics when all we are discussing is the system of government. ÉÍREman 00:04 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

It has been noted that communism is a connotated word with a degree of POV and controversy surrounding it, and that there are academic disputes as to whether or not China is communist. Shino Baku

That is a fair poing of debate and certainly belongs in the article when discussing the political system. But until it changes to another recognisable definition, it still fits the Communist state definition for governmental system closest. None of the other come remotely close, as I have described. Note I am not using the word communist but communist state which is a different thing and refers to the system of governing, not the politics of governing. ÉÍREman 00:57 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

I haven't analyzed all the arguments made here, but here's a quick suggestion. Brush it aside if it isn't applicable or if there are reasons why it isn't feasible. Why not just cite who calls China what? IF the CIA Fact Book calls it communist, say "The CIA fact book calls it communist". If the Chinese constitution calls it socialist, say "The Chinese constitution calls it socialist". That eliminates the burden of trying to find out what government CHina really is, which apparently seems to be debated outside of the Wikipedia as well. We can mention whatever POVs there are on the subject, instead of asserting a single one. --cprompt

An interesting suggestion. There some problems. You mentioned the word socialist, which the PROC constitution uses. But that is interpreted differently worldwide. So that would require a definition, ie is it socialist in the British sense, the Swedish sense, the US sense, the Italian sense, the European Parliament sense? Which definition closely matches the meaning in China and do we deal with readers whose political culture gives them a different meaning. "but not in the sense you are thinking if you are American/British/French/Spanish . . . " :-) Problem 2: I have long been uneasy about using the CIA fact book. Not simply because it has some monstrous errors but also because it adds to the image of wiki americocentrism. Problem 3, (which relates to 1) many states have unique ways of describing themselves (or not describing themselves) which are unique to their culture. That is why sourcebooks stick to a rather rigid sense of definitions which are generally internationally understood, from constitutional monarchy to federal republic to Communist state (and others). Each has a set meaning which means local nuances don't cause confusion. That is why we have the problem: 172 and I want to stick to the formal categories and go by the one generally used and which closest describes the Chinese governmental system, Sirub wants to use a category used colloqually in political science but not in state definitions and one which has multiple meanings and nuances depending on the political culture of the reader. But it is an interesting suggestion, CP ÉÍREman 01:48 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

"Communist," even in the context "communist state," is also debated and not NPOV by any means. I do not know what you mean by "formal encyclopedic definition," I doubt that there is some handbook of "formal encyclopedic definitions" that is universally accepted and considered NPOV; in fact, I suspect that "formal encyclopedic definition" = "JTDIRL's will." You misrepresent me when you say I want to use a definition that is used "used colloqually in political science" (although I thiank you for finally recognizing that political scientists do indeed use the term). If you took the time to read my comments, you would see that I cite a book published by a university press and edited by threee eminent scholars; it is NOT a colloquial but a formal usage. I think Cprompt's suggestions is a good one, eminently sensible, and I suppor it. Slrubenstein

You aren't understanding, Jtdirl, that I am not talking about political system but about governmental system. I am challenging the accuracy of referring to the Chinese governmental system as being a "communist state". The term "communist state" is POV and, at least from my POV, the term is actually "informal." I agree with cprompt and suggest something akin to:

China is a nation (or government), in east Asia, which (via it's constitution) proclaims itself to be a "socialist state"; however, some Western political scientists refer to China as a "communist state".

Shino Baku

The term "communist" has more meanings than a dog has fleas. If we are going to use it at all (as sometimes we must, alas), then we have to carefully pin down the particular meaning that we intend by it in this particular case. Tannin 02:42 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

Nation is unworkable, unusable and not used for ANY state on wiki, on World Book, on E. Brittanica or any other encyxlopædia. And regarding Tannin's reasonable query, that is why there is a link to explain what the term Communist state means. Or there would be if one or two people would stop trying to hide the fact. It is now restored yet again.

Am I reading correctly? nation (or government) Do you know what nation and government are? THEY ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS!!!! What next? A dog is a horse with three wheels? ÉÍREman 03:11 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

I don't believe it is necessary to act in such a disparaging fashion. Although under certain definitions, governments and nations refer to difference concepts, under certain definitions they refer to the same concept. I personally do not care if you refer to China as a nation-state, nation, state, government, country, political body, or what; I do care if you refer to it as being absolutely, and without question, communist. And I don't think dogs are altogether different from horses. Shino Baku

As the article on Communist state manifests, the term itself is an artefact of the Cold War and hardly NPOV. It is an accurate statement that some political scientists use the term, and many have used the term in the past. What is needed -- for NPOV -- is a consideration of the way political science in Western (well, let's be blunt: NATO) states has informed (or biased) their scholarship. To be fair to political scientists, many have come to terms with this, which is why many no longer identify China as a "communist state."

By the way, I do agree with JTDIRL that we must keep the distinction between nation and state clear. Since China's 1911 revolution was a nationalist revolution, and Mao claimed to be an heir to the nationalists (and Schurmann refers to China as a nation-state), of course, the article ought to discuss China as a nation. Still, this is different from "state." Slrubenstein

I agree with Sirub on nation and state. However Communist state is not a western/NATO-invented term. It is used by among others, all neutral and non-aligned states. And China's governing party does call itself the communist party. During the cold war, the POV terms used were communist dictatorship, left wing dictatorship, communist regime run by communists, authoritarian regime, communist authoritarianism. All of these are blatently POV and utterly unacceptable. The term communist state is used widely as seen by non-aligned countries, by left wing political scientists, by right wing political scientists, etc. It is given one very narrow definitionary meaning, a system of government in which the state and party's structures become utterly entwined, with power resting not on the basis of constitutional theory in state offices but in practice among party leaders who may or may not hold executive office in state positions. Where the party is left wing and defines itself as a communist party, that system is known as a communist state. Whether the party is or is not communist, whether it is socialist or anything else is a matter for debate about the politics of the state. The issue we are discussing is simply is simply the definition given to the governmental system. We define every other state on wiki's governmental system, accepting standard political science governmental definitions. What is the problem here?

And no, Shino, state, nation, government, country and political body are not the same and if you think that they are, consult a political science dictionary and learn the differences. ÉÍREman 04:05 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

It all depends on your POV Jtdirl...Shino Baku

Oh go and read a dictionary, Shino. Only people who don't know elementary political science think that. ÉÍREman

The problem, as I have said repeatedly over the past few days, is that I contest your claim that this is a standard political science definition that is applied to PRC, and I have given evidence to support my claim.

On a note that is related but which I would like to treat as completely separate, only to facilitate real communication, my question about this definition of "communist state stands:

a system of government in which the state and party's structures become utterly entwined, with power resting not on the basis of constitutional theory in state offices but in practice among party leaders who may or may not hold executive office in state positions.

applies to Mexico under PRI too. As far as this definition goes, the only reason Mexico would not be called a "communist state" is because the party in question was not a communist party. This seems like a superficial distinction -- it is not structural, it is based on a contingent difference. types of states should not be defined based on the party in power (if this were the case we'd call the US a "Democrat/Republican state), but on the structure in which the occupant of a particular position (whether a person or a party) is interchangable. This leads me to conclude that EITHER

1) there is no such thing as a "communist state" as such, but there is an "authoritarian state" dominated by a "fill in the blank, in this case communist) party, OR

2) as a definition of "communist state" this definition is inadequate. For it to be a structural definition, it must define the structure without appealing to contingent factors. Can you define a communist state in some terms that does not appeal to ideology or to the name of the party in power, but solely to the structural features -- but in a way that would still clearly distinguish it from other one-party states? Slrubenstein

types of states should not be defined based on the party in power Shino Baku

exactly! Slrubenstein

sigh* They are if there is a one party system based on ideology that 'takes over' and in effect sees itself, the state and the government as one and the same. ÉÍREman 05:11 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square was removed and reverted by Fred Bauer (a user whose POV has diluted him into thinking that China isn’t a republic; it’s on one of these talk pages), who has been periodically coming back to this site to make POV insertions. Tiananmen Square was a critical watershed in the history of Chinese politics, and requires a great deal of attention in the history of the PRC article and the article on Chinese politics. But in an introductory paragraph it should be scrapped (it occurred almost 14 years ago) in favor of more recent developments, like labor unrest, the WTO, or the recent party congress and the new generation of leadership. The democracy movement had also been featured too prominently as well. It's not a threat to the PRC domestically, but internationally, especially to Sino-US relations and legislation like the PNTR. The article made it sound as if there were a burgeoning opposition within China.

Also, let's not get into epistemology here. We don't need to philosophize on the difficulties of commenting on contemporary Chinese politics. These a lot of concrete information that we could present instead that would be relevant to an introductory paragraph.

Let's present facts rather than stating the difficulties of commentary.

172

Is 172 agreeing that China is a republic? Shino Baku

The entire world agrees that China is a republic. ÉÍREman 07:06 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

If the entire world agrees that China is a republic, then would you object to

China is a republic in east Asia; which some argue to be a communist state and others argue to be a socialist state? Shino Baku

Note: issue raised on mailing list. If I may try to summarise things: the key disagreement seems to be between the views that:

China is 100% definately a Communist state, for any reasonable definition of "Communist state"
China is not universally agreed to be a Communist state, has unique elements, and to describe it as Communist is misleading.

So, let's try to find consensus - an introductory statement that everyone can agree is fair and accurate. Could any of the following sentences work? Or some combination of them?

China is a non-standard Communist state
China is a Communist-style state
China is a Communistic state
China is a one-party socialist republic
China is governed by the unelected Chinese Communist Party
China is a country
(Shino Baku's suggestion above)
...

Note that introductions are inherently summaries of ideas and thus it is natural and to be expected that they are somewhat misleading. It is my personal opinion that neutral point of view should be sparingly applied to such summaries. They should attempt to be as neutral as possible, but no more neutral. Martin

China is a socialist republic governed by the Chinese Communist Party -- JeLuF 10:15 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

This one has my vote. Socialist or communist republic. Whatever. At least it's real grammar and was contributed by a 'neutral 3rd party'. ;) -- prat

Except that, as historians and political scientists here keep having to repeat and repeat and repeat, there is no such thing in dictionary definition terms as a 'socialist republic' because socialism as a word has a large number of conflicting meanings around the world. How many more times does this have to be pointed out??? Do you mean 'socialist' as understood by French users of wiki, by British users of wiki, by American users of wiki, South African users of wiki, Australian users of wiki, east european users of wiki, Scandanavian users of wiki, ? Please tell us which definition of socialist you intend to use, because Sirub has failed completely to state which definition he means and seems not to understand that there is no one definition, with it meaning everything from extreme left to moderate middle of the road, communist to social democrat and even some nationalists following neo-Thatcherite policies have called themselves socialist!!! Socialist is an unworkable, grossly ambiguous term which is why it is NOT used in state definitions. Ever. But then Sirub seems not too concerned with elementary facts like using state definitions, even though this is what the whole debate is about, not political system and political culture. ÉÍREman 23:06 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

Given the controversy it evokes, the political definition of China should probably be kept in the Politics section of the article, where it can be dealt with adequately. Is it absolutely necessary to keep it as an opening sentence for the entire article? I go back to an earlier suggestion of mine (see one of the archives): "China is a state in Asia ... Since 1949 it has been controlled by the Communist Party." Danny

I prefer Danny's suggestion, although JeLuF is acceptable to me as well -- as long as (either way) there is some discussion in the article itself about the meaning of these terms and their application to China. Slrubenstein

There is currently a section in China on "Politics" with a main article link to Politics of China - is this sufficient? Could it be expanded? Martin 16:23 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

I think that for the moment what we find in the politics section is adequate. Look, I have done no research (I mean, scholarly research, meaning with an eye towards publishing in a peer-reviewed journal) on China. ALl I do know from my "lay" research is that there have been changes and divisions among scholars on how to define and apply these terms. The current wording of the politics section recognizes this. I think as with all articles here, we need to edit them into the best shape we can -- and leave room for or even invite real scholars to expands and elaborate. Of course what we have can and should be expanded -- but it can wait, especially until a political scientist or sociologist currently conducting research on the Chinese state becomes a contributor.

In the meantime, though, the opening line, which once again defines China as a "communist state," has to go. All I have done is gotten involved in a silly revert war with JTDIRL and I am tired of it. As I said, I think Danny's suggestion is fine. I also saw on the listserve that Jimbo came up with an excellent proposal. Anything I do, JTDIRL will revert -- I'd like you, Roadrunner, Danny, Prat, Shino, and JeLuf to just pick one of these -- Jimpo's Danny's, or JeLuf's -- and stick with it. Slrubenstein

I'm not ignoring this controversy. Daunted at the length of the debate and the massive amounts of steam coming out of the ears of three contributors that I have developed a great deal of respect for—JTD, SLR & 172—I decided it would be better to print the talk page and its archive out and read it in a less eye-strain inducing form. Then I ... er ... put it to one side "just for a few minutes" and wrote a new entry on an obscure Australian mamal. And then ... er ... another one. And two more. And now it's bedtime.

Procrastination. It's a wonderful thing. Don't know how I'd survive without it. Tannin 15:22 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

PS: with a little luck, the controversy will be happily settled by the time I wake up, and I can do Spinifex Hopping Mouse instead. Whoever said procrastination wasn't an effective time management strategy? Tannin

Since 172 and Jtdirl both agree that China is a republic, I reccomend :China is a republic in east Asia, governed by the Chinese Communist Party since 1949; which some argue to be a communist state, while others (including China itself) argue it to be a socialist state. Shino Baku

Nobody has ever said it was otherwise. But it isn't a republic in the liberal democracy model, but in the Communist state model. ÉÍREman 22:42 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)