Talk:China/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

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

Hi again! Thought it looked like an opportune moment to reiterate the suggestion I made yesterday .. let's just drop the attempt at a one or two-word classification in the introductory setence, create a section or wiki on Chinese government, and state the facts there. Ie: How China views itself (constitution), how others view China (various public classifications), relevant events (recent congress and introduction of capitalists in to the party), etc. It'd be quicker to do that than keep arguing. -- prat

Is the introductory paragraph really in need of the sentence "The United Nations, however, recognizes the People's Republic as the sole legitimate government of China and Taiwan as province of China"? The significance of this fact is debatable, particularly within the context of a subject clarification... IMHO it's not really NPOV, because we don't state that some states recognise Taiwan. All in all, I don't think it's relevant enough to stay there. Opinions? -- prat

The problem that I have with either the terms Communist or socialist in the header less POV then the fact that they are misleading. They cause the average reader to assume things about the Chinese government that are not the case. Jtdrl presents a good definition of what a Communist government is, and I object to including the term in the definition because it implies that the Chinese government works in a way that it does not.

The Party and State are two distinct entities that interact in very complex and sometimes bizzarre ways. For example, I know of people who explicitly do not join the Communist Party because it hurts their chances for advancement in the government. By convention all governmental committees and groups have at least one non-party member, and if you join the party you are competing with other party members for the other seats, while if you don't join the party, you are more likely to get the non-party seat where the competition is less.

It is true that at the top level, the party and state share leadership, but it is also true that this is not always the cause (it wasn't in the 1980's). Also at lower levels, you frequently have the situation where the Party General Secretary for an area is at odds with the Governor or local administrator. In a classic Communist state, this would not be an issue since the Party General Secretary would order the Governor to do something. Precisely because China is *not* a classic Communist state is it that you get this sort of conflict. You've also had situations (Zhejiang in the late 1990's) in which the People's Congress overruled the Party's recommendation for governor which doesn't make the general secretary happy which leads to the Party and State hating each other. My sense is that the Central government likes this situation because with the General Secretary and Governor hating each other, Beijing has to resolve the conflict.

I've tried to capture the complexity of the relationship in the article politics of China.

Now as far as Constitutional theory. Under Chinese Constitutional theory, the Chinese Communist Party is an organization and as such it is subordinate to the state. This was written into the 1982 Constitution, but the doctrine of state supremacy over the party wasn't fully accepted until the early 1990's (ironically as an unintended consequence of Tiananmen). The doctrine that the state is superior to the party and the party is subject to the law is something that no Chinese legal scholar or politician questions today, and again this is different from the classic Communist state. Also as a result of economic changes that were formalized with Constitutional amendments in the late-1990's, the economic role of the party was sharply reduced.

Again there are self-interested reasons for this theory. The central government can effectively control the membership of the People's Congresses and as such, if they don't like the law, they can change it. By contrast local party officials can't change the law, so this emphasis on state supremacy actually increases the Beijing's power.

The Chinese system of government is not a liberal democracy and it is a one-party authoritarian state, but it is different enough from the classic Communist state (say USSR-1960) that it would be highly misleading to label it a Communist state without qualification.

One other reason that I hesitate using Communist to describe China. In the classic Communist state the important orders went down the party chain of command. In China, the important orders go down the state chain of command.

Now about socialist. The problem I have with the term socialist is that in a Chinese context it *means* something completely different than in a Western context. In a Chinese context it means a Marxist stage and says *NOTHING* about the relationship between the government and the economy. Using the Chinese definition, the governments of all developed Western nations would be socialist.

-- Roadrunner

I understand your point. And yes Communist State does not do justice to the full complexities of the PROC. But the trouble is, every other potential standard definition is much more inaccurate. It isn't a constitutional monarchy, a popular monarchy, an absolute monarchy. Calling it a republic is a gross simplification. Authoritarian falls on three points. It doesn't have a clear universal meaning, there are two many types of authoritarian states, and it is a heavily loaded judgmental POV term. I may well agree that the state operates as an authoritian regime, but it is a term that is seen as having to many judgmental implications to be workable. Socialist, as you rightly said in the context of China means nothing and has a different western meaning. The reason why Communist State is widely used (contrary to the rather dubious claim someone made above) is that among definitions of what category a state belongs to, it is by far the closest fit. In terms of fitting the criteria, it is in the region 80-90%. Leaving aside authoritarian because of POV and ambiguity problems, all the other alternatives come in the region of 0-30% accuracy.

Regarding Mav's 'loaded' and 'ambiguous' claim: almost every term on wiki is loaded and ambiguous; saying Catholic rather than Roman Catholic or vice versa has loaded and/or ambiguous meanings, Britain versus the United Kingdom, America versus US. We use words like terrorist, appeasement etc and they are 100% loaded and ambiguous. You could fill an entire page with a list of just about every term on wiki that has such terms. If Communist State (written like that) is good enough for other encyclopædias, source book, text books, briefing notes, docu-sheets from embassies, diplomatic reference books, etc etc etc why is it unacceptable to wiki? Is wiki in a class of its own? Or is it the word 'communist' has particular resonances in the US, as it has had back since McCarthy and beyond? If that is the case, then American concerns aren't good enough when the rest of the world is OK with the term 'Communist State' and use it. It remains the definitionary term for a system of state that is comes by far the closest to describing what the PROC is. Maybe what we could do is create a linked page explaining in strict constitutional/governmental terms what the term means, so all those who might read into it a POV or a loaded meaning can read exactly what the term means and so know what it does and perhaps more importantly does not imply, hint, suggest or promote. BTW thanks Roadrunner for what you had to say. It was thought-provoking, useful and analytical. Too much of the debate (but not by everyone I hasten to add) here has been superficial and drifted off on pointless tangents. Please guys, lets stick to the point here. Or maybe we should just say China is . . . em . . . China. Make your own mind up what you think it is!!! ÉÍREman 01:23 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

BTW could someone else do the archiving this time? I am stuck doing something else and it is already at 31K again (the last time I archived the page it was 43K. This page needs archiving almost as often as Mav's! *grin*. Mav, as an expert in archiving, maybe you could do it this time! BTW no 3: great to see you back, Mav me man! Hope you and your partner had a good break.ÉÍREman 01:23 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)~

BLOODY HELL. IT IS NOW at 34K annd rising.

Why not simply state that it is a nation and discuss what sort of nation elsewhere? Shino Baku

To paraphrase Humphrey Bogart, Of all the terms in all the world, you had to pick that one.

  • Have you any idea how many rows there are over the word 'nation', what it means, who is one and who isn't? It probably is the worst possible choice.
  • And what do you do everywhere else? Ireland is a nation? France is a nation? The US is a nation? The whole point is to use an accurate definition that says what a state is. Nation tells you nothing. You might as well say China is a big place, China has borders, China has people in it with arms and legs. China has cars and houses and trees and things. We aren't looking for words to fill up space, we are looking for a useful, relevant, comprehendable definition. Nation is useless as a definition. For a start, is Tibet part of the Chinese nation or a separate nation? ÉÍREman 03:29 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)
  • Are you trying to say that you don't think China is a nation? Shino Baku

If Communist State (written like that) is good enough for other encyclopædias, source book, text books, briefing notes, docu-sheets from embassies, diplomatic reference books, etc etc etc why is it unacceptable to wiki? Is wiki in a class of its own?"

Yes, Wikipedia is in a class of its own. A false characterization of the nature of the regime can be removed by anyone who knows it is false. That said, perhaps an article on the nature of the regime is warrnented (in addition to politics of China Fred Bauder 12:29 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

So in other words, all sourcebooks, encyclopædias, docu-sheets, briefing notes, UN documents, CIA reports, Council of Europe records, etc etc are all FALSE??? That is one of the most arrogant claims I have ever come across on wiki. 'We know better than the world'.

Re Shino's attempt to stir up the nation nonsense, using that term is the equivalent of throwing petrol on a fire. Do you have any idea of the conflicting views on whether China is one nation or many nations? That is one topic to be avoided like the plague. ÉÍREman 18:50 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

I have re-edited the article and replaced the controversial language with "nation" and moved the characterization of the regime to the Politics section. Also 2 new sections Public Health and International Relations which is where the info on the United Nations is. Restore info on SARS and on the democracy movement. Expect reverts without comment if you try to keep the hell agoing. Fred Bauder 13:28 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Fred, JTDIRL is right -- "nation" is a much stickier/mushier term than "state" or :society" or any way of characterizing states or societies; I think the article ought to avoid the term, unless the article goes into current debates over Shinese "nationality" and "nationalism" (certainly important in the early 20th century history of China!) Slrubenstein

Well, no need for the particular term "nation", just don't set up the revert dynamic again. Fred Bauder 16:50 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Fred, I completely agree with you about the revert war. I am frankly feeling pretty frustrated. Wikipedia ought to reflect bodies of knowledge in an NPOV way. We could just describe China as a "state," but if we are going to label it we ought to follow the convention, or, if there is a debate, recognize the debate over the convention. I checked the makjore academic journals -- Modern China, Modern CHina Quarterly -- as well as some books, and the trend is for political scientists and others to label China a "socialist" state (although one political scientist colleague of mine said many refer to it, half-jokingly, as "market-leninist." One standard recent work is Chinese village, Socialist State, by Edward Friedman (a political scientist at Wisconisn), Paul G. Pickowicz (an historian at UC San Diego), and Mark Selden (a sociologist at Cornell University and Binghanton University); the book is published by Yale University Press in 1991 -- these are three top scholars in China studies from major universities publishing in a major university press and they classify China as a "socialist state."
The thing that bothers me most about JTDIRL and 172 is that they keepo making blanket claims that are patently false (like, NO political scientist calls China a socialist state), and when I cite real evidence -- e.g. the journal Modern China, they just ignore the evidence.
I am not a China scholar. But I talked to colleagues -- in sociology, anthropology, and political science -- and they all tell me that most scholars reject identifying China as a "communist state" and most either don't try to identify it at all, or label it "communist ruled" because the communist party is the dominant party, or a "socialist state." I have also checked the recent scholarly literature and have given you some examples, above. JTDIRL and 172, however, argue from a position of authority. They took some courses in European history, so they are authorities on all history. They insist that all political scientists identify China as a socialist state, and give no proof. I offer evidence that at least some do not, and they ignore that evidence. It really is tiresome. Slrubenstein

THEY DO NOT, Sirubstein, because 'socialist state' has utterly ambiguous meanings, being understood differently in Europe, in Africa and in the Americas. Socialist state has no one meaning and so is NOT, repeat NOT, used in encyclpoædias because of its fundamentally conflicting means. I checked with the

  • Chinese embassy in Dublin - Communist state is OK, other alternatives NOT.
  • My Professor of Politics (who teaches a course on Chinese government and politics: Socialist state is NOT a universally recognised term but it is used in region-specific books because within a region, a particular meaning would be understood. However most political scientists frown on the term because of its ambiguity and DO NOT USE IT, in fact edit it out of texts. The correct term is Communist state.
  • The encyclopædia I work for as a copywriter and consultant: 'We do not use any term but 'Communist state'. Socialist state is always removed because it has four regional meanings, depending on from what political regional culture the reader is from'. The ALWAYS remove it, if the term is used by a commissioned writer. China they too define as a communist state, nothing else.

I have made two changes to the opening paragraphs.

  • It is important to explain the difference between the PROC and the ROC. I have included the explanation that the UN, US, EC and most states recognise the former as the legitimate govt of China. A minority recognise the ROC. That is 100% factually accurate and is a crucial bit of information that a reader needs to know in terms of understanding why wiki and China has two states using the words 'republic of China. Indeed that phrase is usually featured up front in most articles on either the PROC or the ROC in encyclopædias, sourcebooks, etc. It doesn't express a POV, merely states the current nature of who recognises what.
  • I have removed 'nation' (which as Sirubstein has mentioned is both much stickier and much mushier than almost any other alternative description available) and reinserted Communist state, WITH A LINK which 172 and whomever else wants to call fill in to describe what the term means. Every article on every state in wiki and elsewhere categorises a state. It is an automatic requirement. No other category comes remotely as close as Communist state to describing what the PROC is, though I agree it is not 100% accurate (but still ten times closer than any alternative). Allowing a link page should close off any confusion as a clear short definition can be given allowing the reader to know what the term means, and perhaps more importantly does not mean. We already as definitions of Constitutional Monarchy, Popular Monarchy, Republic, Federal Republic etc so that people can know what the term means. Doing this is the obvious clearcut solution that avoids unintentional meanings. If people do not know what the term means, all they have to do is hit the link to have it explained. ÉÍREman 19:18 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)
I agree that a link to someplace else is a nice idea for disambiguation, though I'd be leaning to a link to say China/System_of_Government or something specific to China. It's not entirely solving the problem of misrepresentation though, as you're still using a highly approximate one or two word phrase to describe a unique system. -- prat

Slr is bringing some pretty solid sources for his argument, including some of the leading scholars of China today. As for "false use of undefined inaccurate terms that are frowned on as POV and ambiguous by political scientists", how do these anonymous political scientists respond to any of sources that Slr has brought? Danny

Thanks Danny. For what it is worth, I am glad that JTDIRL is finally doing some minimal research, which one would think is a sine qua non in working on an encyclopedia. And I do take his poli-sci professor's comment seriously (maybe a professor who does research on China should be working on this article, rather than JTDIRL or me!). Nevertheless, I think you are right, Danny -- one professor's claims should not have the same weight as articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Moreover, I wholeheartedly reject JTDIRL's use of another encyclopedia's practice, as reasons for our practices. As Fred pointed out, Wikipedia is not a typical encyclopedia. Look, if people want to know how a conventional encyclopedia looks at things, I think they should just go to Encyclopedia Brittanica. By conventional standards won't that encyclopedia always be better, more authoritative, than Wikipedia? Nevertheless, I think Wikipedia holds the promise of being better than EB. Why? Because we all know about the ways that encyclopedia conventions, as well as marketing needs, limit and bias conventional encyclopedias. In short, JTFIRL's boos at his encyclopedia in Ireland is not and ought not to be our boss. Slrubenstein

Firstly, Sirub, I do research all the time for a living!!! And I have researched this topic and talked to plenty of people about it. I am thoroughly fed up spending time when I should be doing my own research having to race around chasing academics to double check wacky wiki ideas, to be greated with the usual academic reaction of "for fuck sake. Wikipedia says WHAT???" followed by a groan and and a statement that, yes, it is absolute bollocks, yes you were right to check it out, yes you are correct, etc. Secondly, I would love wiki to be better than many encyclopædias who do make monumental errors on occasion. But we do need to follow elementary encyclopædic standards on definitions, accuracy, etc. I am fed up cleaning up absolute garbage on wiki; rubbish like the 'article' on John Redmond that in its first draft had all the intellectual depth of a four year old's doodle. (Go look at the first draft on the system and cringe.) And I want this article to be factual, accurate and reliable, not something that professional knowledge searchers would take a look at, cringe and conclude that wiki is a third rate joke of an encyclopædia. There are some absolutely first class articles in wiki, and Sirub has been a considerable contributor to some of the them. But there is also fifth rate bullshit and a lot in between. I am doing my damnest to weed out the crap and make each article I contribute to the best I can.

re the article - I have put a basic stub on the definition of Communist state. Please contribute to it if you know more about the topic. ÉÍREman 19:59 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

JTDIRL, Although I admit that my feelings of frustration and anger were provoked as much by 172 as by you, I cannot apologize for my remarks, although I had no doubt that you resent them. But let us be clear – I was not suggesting that you have no commitment to research or Wikipedia in general. I was criticizing your continuous inability to engage in a respectful and meaningful dialogue with other Wikipedians – a good many of whom are at least as dedicated to Wikipedia, and research, as you. Believe it or not, I and others also do research, and it is personally insulting and professionally unconstructive when someone (in this case you) is utterly dismissive of other people’s work. When this whole exchange began, you wrote:
A socialist state is meaningless and not used by political scientists as a definition of the state. It may define the politics of the state, but that is a different thing entirely.
And I explained that there are political scientists who do call China a socialist state; I also cited a journal. At one point, you responded with this – and if you want to, please explain to me in what universe you could possibly believe someone such as myself would not “resent” the tone and content of this patronizing and dismissive remark:
It is like groundhog day here. The facts regarding definitions are explained. Then people misunderstand or misrepresent them, go off on irrelevant tangents, so the facts are explained again, people come back, misunderstand them, misrepresent them, go off on tangents so the facts are explained again, people come back misrepresent them . . . . oh God, will someone please wake me up from this nightmare!!! ÉÉÍÍREman 23:21 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC) (Monty Python should make a film of this page. It is surreal enough!)
Let’s be very clear: I did not accuse you of “never” doing research – as you know from the past I have (and continue to have) a high regard for your knowledge of Irish history and politics. I did, however, accuse you for not doing research on Chinese politics, and I certainly will go so far as to qualify that now by saying that you did not seem willing to demonstrate to me or others that you had done any research, or share that research with the community. You simply made a bald assertion and refused to consider any alternative. You made a claim that no one identifies China as a socialist state, and gave no evidence. I did give evidence of people who identify China as a socialist state, and you ignored my evidence only to reassert the bald claim. I resent that.
I have checked some books published by university presses, and refereed journals, and have given examples of scholars using the term “socialist state.” I have talked with tenured professors of sociology, anthropology, and political scientists, and have been told the following: virtually all anthropologists and sociologists classify China as a socialist state. In the past most political scientists classified it as a communist state, but most are abandoning that position. Some categorize China as an authoritarian state (contrary to the claims of some Wikipedians); some categorize it as a post-socialist state, although my own friends who are China scholars reject that; they prefer “late-socialist state”.
Let me continue to be clear -- I am not motivated by marxist ideology nor interested in marxist ideology, market reforms, or anything else. My only question is, how doe Western scholars describe the Chinese state -- I have done some research, and found than many if not most describe it as "socialist." How they go about classifying states, or what thye mean by socialist, is -- in this particular matter -- not of interest to me. All I want to know is how they classify China.
So you see, I do research too. But given your pompous and disrespectful attitude towards your colleagues, I am sure you will ignore this and simply respond by asserting once again, “No one calls China a socialist state” and accuse me of going off on tangents and misrepresenting or misunderstanding you. Believe it or not, at this point I can live with that. Slrubenstein

Slrubenstein: These academics are not describing the simple government-type. Terms like "monarchy", "federal republic", "republic", "constitutional monarchy", "military rule", "Islamic Republic", "confederation" and "Communist state" denote governemnt types, despite variation from state to state. The structures in theory and practice of the North Korean, Chinese, Cuba, Vietnamese, and Laotian governments vary, but so do constiutional monarchies like Denmark and Kuiwait.

This debate has nothing whatsoever to do with the market reforms, Marxist theory, and the government's dedication to Marxist-Leninist principles. These academics whom you've cited have their own interpretations concerning economic reform in China and modernization that they are advancing with terms like "late socialist" or "post-socialist", which are sociological in the context that you'd mentioned them.

It doesn't matter if every single China expert in the world concluded that China is the most capitalistic nation on earth, China would still be a Communist state (in reference to the government-type) so long as Marxism-Leninism is the state philosophy and the structures of the Communist Party-led state don't significantly change.

172

172, I appreciate your comment (and the tone), but I still do not agree with you. You are correct to be sure that different academics have their own interpretations of what is going on in China. My point to you is a complementary point -- different academics have different ways of classifying states. I simply reject the assertion that any state that is dominated by a communist party or whose structure or functioning is informed by people with an ideology they call marxist leninist is necessarily a "communist state." You seem to think of this definition of a communist state as objective and universal. I believe it is not; I believe that all analytical concepts (including such definitions) are formed in specific historical contexts, and often contested. I think that is the case here. Specifically, I believe that those scholars who used the term "communist state" were politically partisan, or working within politically partisan institutions. Moreover, I reject the assertion that the term "communist state" is somehow more meaningful than "socialist state."

I will also repeart something I stated above. I am not at all interested in ideology (you are, as your definition of "communist state" hinges on ideology, specifically marxist-leninist), nor am I interested in market reforms or anything going on in China today. My only question is in how scholars identify the CHinese "state." My method is to look at books published by university presses, and to look at articles published in peer-reviewed journals. My conclusion is, "socialist state." Slrubenstein

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/i/Talk%7EChina_Archive_3_952e.html"