Talk:Socialism with Chinese characteristics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
