Talk:Socialism with Chinese characteristics

Initial Comment

Seriously, the article needs higher quality. With rhetoric questions and personal comments, it sounds more like a speech than something that provides concrete and precise information.

I am talking with a Chinese friend about our perceptions of China's economy, and the last paragraph, if not other parts of it, would lead to outright dismissal of the article by most Chinese readers. If the official viewpoint is absolutely indefensible, we at least need some explanation why: perhaps some abortive official doublespeak, or something to that effect, to indicate that the botched arguments ascribed to the PRC government really originate there. I do not feel competent to find all these things myself, but I wish someone would. Vivacissamamente 30 June 2005 10:58 (UTC)

How should we clean this up? Please provide some justification. — Stevey7788 (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The last paragraph seems sloppy though. — Stevey7788 (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

First of all, the whole article is too opinionative, it criticizes the idea too much, instead of giving it a more unbiased view. Second of all, the quote by Deng, about 5 billion people, has to be wrong...

I don't know.... it seems pretty good to me. Maybe some headings and a bit of expansion would help, but I think the information presented in the article is good.

The entire article is simply too opinionated, not presenting an unbiased look at all. It needs to be rewritten as to stop endorsing opinion. 24.10.139.96 18:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Well by all means, Be Bold! It beats flappin' yer gums about what oughta be, especially in view of the fact that you can change the article however you wish at any time (excluding, of course, the very small amount of time Wikipedia spends in database lockdown *cough*). --Ryanaxp 04:54, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

The article may have a slightly opinionated tone, but overall it provides a clear, encompassing view on Chinese political reform. It deffinitally helped my understanding.

00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)213.78.248.168 00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

this an extremely poorly written body of writing.

its shockingly repetetive! the same paragraph must be in there about 4 times. it's very short and one-sided and has very few sources.

much much more needs to be said about what was kept under state control. i recently read an article by a chinese student on the bbc news website supporting the communist party's system by pointing out that in britain people die on nhs waiting lists. apparently this isn't the case in the chinese health service.

i question the neutrality of this article and its shoddy presentation.

px

---

I also question the neutrality of this artical. It was obveously written by someone who is strongly opinionated about the issue. It is also repetitive, as others have mentioned. And I'd like to see a direct reference to that quote from the Kissenger meeting -- which sounds alot like hearsay to me.

Tristan Chambers -- Sun Sep 11 10:23:53 EDT 2005

I put in the reference to Kissinger. I read it in the media (newspaper, Time, Newsweek, US News & World Report .. can't say where I read it) at the time it occured (WAY before the internet). I wish I had a reference but I don't. WAS 4.250 06:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

People are complaining about older revisions lacking neutrality, but I don't really see that. In Marxist theory, the PRC today is a bourgeois capitalist state and the old article was simply putting out how hypocritical the PRC's government is being when they call themselves "socialist" and "communist" rather than "capitalist". Thunk 22:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

The article states "The most important was that with pricing reform in the late 1980s, most state owned enterprises became highly unprofitable and the government decided to close or sell them off." Can someone please explain to me why the enterprises suddenly become profitable in private hands as opposed to state owned? Does it have something to do with the increase of cheap labour and overcharging of resources to the population? Could someone please expand on this. - unsigned

It is not appropriate to deal with it in the article as the information you are asking for is both well known and applies to all cases of sovereign (ie government) verses nongovernment control of assets and boils down to the concepts of bankruptcy and profit center. A good illustration is the extreme example of government owned soviet shops that had nothing in them to sell, yet did not close. Governments could require local government entities to compete with one another and change management when they couldn't generate funds to pay their salary and rent, but laws governing government employees versus private employees make it easier to sell or rent or contract out government assets/services in many cases. See privatization. WAS 4.250 21:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not what happened in China. Roadrunner 22:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought the reasons were obvious, but anyway, it mainly came down to the lack of competition providing no incentive to cut costs. State-owned shops were notorious for over-employment - a typical state-owned convenience shop in the 70's may have 10 sales a day, 10 employees, of whom 5 will be playing cards, 3 will be knitting, and 2 will actually be doing useful work - at a snail's pace and being rude to the customers of course. How can this outfit hope to compete with 7/11? C xong (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

POV template

Have added POV template to reflect bias concerns expressed above. Snooo 13:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please specify "expressed above". Cut and paste if you like. The article has changed a lot and some of the concerns "expressed above" no longer apply. What change to the article would make it unbiased in your opinion? What sources support that change? WAS 4.250 15:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The article consists of 90% quotes with almost no explanation, and besides a short introduction the only non-quote part consists of two tiny paragraphs of criticisms! In addition, one of these quotes comes directly from a website called "Dissident Voice", which calls itself a "Radical Newsletter in the Struggle for Peace and Social Justice" - not an invalid, source, of course, but als surely not NPOV.

Also, I highly doubt supporters of "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" would agree with the formulation that the Chinese "redefine" Marxist terms. Certainly, in official party literature talk of development, not change. To be honest, I really think it is POV, the POV being that the current government of China is not socialist (they NEVER claim to be communist, communism being only the ultimate goal, which also says something about the quoted "death of communism"), so I added the NPOV sign back. Of course, anyone who disagrees is free to remove it again ;). I did this "on my own" simply because the above is a quite old post.

However, apart from this general things that really are only based on feeling, I'm afraid I lack the the specific knowledge to really improve the article. I only removed the blatant falsehood that the offical ideology of the CPC is that the revolution was a development from FEUDAL to socialist society - it is from CAPITALISTIC to socialist society (the Republic of China being the capitalists, although the beginnings are sometimes dated as far back as the Song dynasty!) 89.217.183.48 20:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Profit is the Problem

At least as it is now, I find this a well composed and enlightening article. Obviously the resolution of any concrete issues is far outside the scope of Wikipedia. FWIW though I note the fundamental problem is with the reintroduction of the profit principle which is inevitably in conflict with Marxism as the fundamental principle thereof is that the extraction of profit, i.e. surplus value, is the essence of what capitalism is about and what Marxism is supposed to be against. Thus to the extent that Socialism With Chinese Characteristics restores profit seeking with all that it entails as the fundamental principle underlying production it is as complete a repudiation of Marxism as for example occured in the former Soviet Union, albeit without even the pretense of democracy found in the present day Russian oligarchy. Lycurgus 18:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I always thought that marxism predicted that feudalism evolved into capitalism which evolved into communism (perhaps by way of socialism says lenin) and that attempts to bypass capitalism were merely excuses for dictatorship. WAS 4.250 17:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You are perhaps confusing the dictatorship of the proletariat, the concept of a deformed workers state, as well as some oversimplifications on the nature of Marxist theory. There was a considerable controversy in the first wave of socialism over whether all of the stages of history must be transited before socialism could be reached. In particular whether Russia 90 years ago was in fact a capitalist society or a feudal one and similar arguments applied to China. The only thing that Marxism predicts as such is the inevitable rise to power of the working class, i.e. the inevitability of socialism, leaving aside for the moment whether or not Marxism is a coherent body of theory which could make predictions at all in the manner in which, for example, chemistry or physics do. This issue has pretty much been superceeded by the facts of the revolutions in Russia, China, and elsewhere and the culprit is held to be not the failure to transit all the stages of historical development in order but rather the notion of socialism in one country espoused by Stalin and the Chinese Stalinists. It is this which leads in effect to the aggravation of class struggle under socialism as the nationalistic parties degenerate into ruling elites. You can see how well this fits because it is precisely by having the revolution occur on a global basis that the issue of differential stages of development in different nation-states is overcome. Lycurgus 21:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

this isn't really an article

So far this is basically a collection of official quotes about the subject. An actual article should cover the extensive debate, both within and outside of China, over what exactly "socialism with Chinese characteristics" consists of; whether it's actually socialism in a meaningful sense; what its relationship is with Maoism and Marxism-Leninism; and what its relationship is with capitalism. --Delirium (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

First, how is that a NPOV concern? Second, the article states it is about the term saying "This article is about the term itself and its relationships. For its implementation and effects see Economy of the People's Republic of China and Chinese economic reform." Have you looked at those articles? Seems to me you haven't thought this through. On the other hand, it would be nice if you choose to add sourced data about this term (rather than about the economic changes themselves which are covered elsewhere). The term itself appears to me to be a way of calling a mixed economy socialism, just as American right wingers like to call America's mixed economy "capitalism". But such statements and analysis must be properly sourced so they do not violate WP:NOR. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Oui, c'est l'article. Wirklich. Lycurgus (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sentence removed from Lede

"The Chinese state routinely micromanages prices set by state enterprises, however."

Probably meant that the party sets prices in some sector(s) in which it dominates or owns all production. "Micromanage" is judgmental and inappropriate,since except in a true command economy, regardless of the variant of the "market economy", the owners of an enterprise set its price policy. Also seems to imply that prices have a natural non-human origin which is being artificially interfered with when in fact market makers are the actual determiners of prices although they do do so with demand as a factor in mind in so-called free markets. Lycurgus (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

CPC claiming China to be socialist

According to the interpretation of this by the Communist Party of China, the revolution of 1949 was an irreversible change from capitalism to socialism and that therefore China is still socialist.

However, CPC has never claimed that Chinese economy became socialist after 1949 revolution. And now, the official point is that China is developing its society to the stage of common welfare state and only after this point the transition to the socialism may begin. (And, just to add, that this society is generally acheived in several provinces)

According to Marx, economic socialism is determined by the property on the means of production. Which means that if you use these means, you own them, and if you work with complicated means, like factory, you own it with all the workers collectively. (!NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH THE STATE PROPERTY!) 80.251.126.6 (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"The PRC government maintains that it has not abandoned Marxism, but has simply developed many of the terms and concepts of Marxist theory to accommodate its new economic system. The ruling Communist Party of China argues that socialism is compatible with these economic policies. In current Chinese Communist thinking, the PRC is in the primary stage of socialism, and this redefinition allows the PRC to undertake whatever economic policies are needed to develop into an industrialized nation."

The same here.

CPC doesn't claim that socialism is present in China, vice versa, they claim that it can be achieved only by the passing through all the other necessary stages of development. 80.251.126.6 (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is violent.

Repetition is form of violence, and this article repeats the phrase "primary stage of socialism" a total of 18 times. It should be edited, given that repetition is form of violence. --Blahschmuck (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Is Maoism part of it?

I'm a student from Chinese mainland. Our teachers have always told us that Socialism with Chinese characteristics doesn't include Mao's thought. So claimed by CPC, Socialism with Chinese characteristics only means Deng Xiaoping's Theory, Three Represents, Scientific Outlook on Development and Xi's Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.88.11.108 (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Of course NOT. By the way, I think the so-called "socialism with Chinese characteristics" is Marxist revisionism and traitor of Maoism. Deng Xiaoping is a notably revisionist and traitor of Mao Zedong. JohnGao (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I think Dengism is NOT a branch of Maoism. Dengism is a notably revisionist ideology. JohnGao (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Xi Jinping section

Sorely needed, most powerful guy in generation. Reformed constitution, been in power for long time and looks like he will stay there.Sourcerery (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 19:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Should mention something

Mao Zedong said somewhere that the revolution would happen again every seven or eight years, first by rightists then leftists. This is because Chinese purges never reeducated/punished millions of the upper class 2601:588:8181:C80:4DFD:8D1E:4643:85AB (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

That's not about socialism with Chinese characteristics 69.157.143.65 (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Socialism

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 23 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SlyRedeemerJT (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by SlyRedeemerJT (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)