Talk:Deng Xiaoping/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
Linked to socialist market economy.
Also removed link to was responsible for other purges and crackdowns (besides TAM) that led to the death of thousands of people. Need to be much more specific. I think that you could argue that his being part of the Anti-Rightist movement fits this, but this doesn't seem to work completely. Deng was rather remarkble for being remarkably non-bloody in his purges.
There are about three or four ways one could justify that statement, but since I'm not a mind reader I'll leave it to the original author to go into detail about what he meant.
Removed this statement. This sentence implies a reallocation of resources which did not occur in China. Quite the opposite, Russian-style socialist theory tends to create overallocation of capital in heavy industries, and overall, the Deng Xiaoping reforms have causes capital to move *from* heavy industry causing large numbers of industrial plants to shut down.
- With the short gestation period, low capital requirements, and high foreign-exchange export earnings, profits generated by light manufacturing were able to be reinvested in more capital-intensive industries
I know this, Roadrunner. This doesn't change the fact that profits generated by light industry are reinvested to more capital-intensive industries. That's industrialization. The movement from primitive toward more technologically advanced industry. Your charges, that I do not understand the difference between Soviet and Chinese development models, are slander and vandalism.
- But the profits weren't reinvested. The capital invested in heavy industry largely comes from the banking system, and most of that capital comes from consumer deposits. One of the first items of the DXP reforms was to prevent reallocation of profits except through taxation or through the banking system.
- The whole point of the DXP is that profits wouldn't be transferred because doing so would discourage people from trying to make a profit.
172,
Can you explain what is wrong with my edits?
If I know what is objectionable, I can step by step explain the rationale behind them.
for example, its important to mention that DXP allowed experimentation with concepts that were merely not "anti-Mao" but also "seemingly capitalist". This is what made DXP different from Chen Yun who was also quite anti-Maoist but drew the line at some measures that would make China seem too capitalist.
Similarly, I changed the statement by Jiang from "expressed the sentiment of the nation" because there are large segments of the Chinese population who dislike DXP because of his role in TAM. Public sentiment toward Deng is generally favorable, but it's not universally favorable.
My objections to the description of light industry is stated above. I tried to rework the wording to keep some of your thoughts, but I think what you wrote had a someone misleading description of how the DXP reforms worked.
etc. etc. etc.
My sentence was a bit vague, but I was fully aware of what you’ve illustrated above. I’m also aware of the contrasts between Chen and Deng. Those contrasts might be more appropriate in the article on PRC history though.
So what exactly is wrong with my edits which would prompt a mass revert. It's important to point out the differences not only between Deng and Mao but also between Deng and Hua Guofeng and Chen Yun.
--- User:Roadrunner
I did not see that new paragraph in the legacy section. Sorry. Keep in mind though, this is an article on Deng, not PRC history. If anything, I put too much on economic history in the article.
172,
Rather than massive revert, I'm going to get lunch and when I come back I'm going to introduce my changes one at a time. For example, my objection to 172 description of the focus on light industry is that while it does distinguish Chinese economic reform from Soviet russia, it *doesn't* distinguish Chinese economic reform for the reforms in Yugoslavia and Hungary which was also focused in light industry and trade with Western Europe.
The important difference is that in China, the profits from light industry weren't reinvested in heavy industry by government mandate. One of the first reforms in 1983 or so was that the central government would no longer direct the flow of capital and would not direct how the profits of the TVE's were to be spend.
Roadrunner:
You are acting like a childish show-off.
- In other words, you can't find a flaw in what I've said.
This is an encyclopedia article. I gave a brief synopsis on economic history that will allow readers to understand what kind of changes are going on right now in Chinese society. Keep in mind that a short encyclopedia entry on Deng is not going to be written at our level. Let's find a different forum to discuss the inner-workings of Chen Yun, Deng Xiaoping, Hu Yaobang, Zhao Ziyang, Li Peng, Hua Guofeng, etc. Let’s find another forum for comparative economics.
- The most important thing for an encyclopedia article is that it be *correct*. If the problem is that you think that my edits have too much detail, you are perfectly free to move them to talk, create another article, or act in any number of ways.
- The edits I made are rather crucial because they distinguish between the Chinese model of reform and the Yugoslav model of reform.
Add whatever the hell you want, but don’t delete my writing. It’s succinct and understandable, thus being beneficial to the “laymen” whom you callously deride.
- The problem is that in many places, it is either wrong or misleading.
Why don’t you devote your time to writing new articles are revamping incomplete ones?
-172
Started putting in new edits....
1) Added text to compare and contrast Deng's views with those of Hua Guofeng and Chen Yun.
2) Added text to explain Deng's role in Chinese economic reform and compare and contrast with Gorbachev's role.
3) Added caveat on the nature of Chinese central planning. Up until 1995 or so the model for Chinese central planning was South Korea and Japan. Since 1995, it's been the United States.
4) reworded light industry section a bit. Introduced contrast with Yugoslavia and Hungary. Also changed profit -> revenue which is an important distinction. One of the important aspects of the Deng reforms is that the entity that makes the profit gets to keep it. The capital for heavy industry comes from consumer deposits, and worker salaries are part of revenue but not profit on the balance sheet.
5) Added section on class background and repudiation of Cultural Revolution. This should be expanded to include Beijing Spring and Democracy Wall as well as the leadership context.
6) Added stubs for anti-rightist movement.
7) Added more stuff about 1970's leadership struggles.
Roadrunner,
I welcome these new additions. This time, you’re enhancing the content rather than deleting and replacing parts of what I wrote.
One of the tenants of Deng Xiaoping Theroy is that there should not and cannot be only one mode of development, one concept of values and only one type of social system in the world due to differences in historical conditions, social systems, development levels, cultural traditions and concepts of values. While indicative of Deng’s “seeking truth from facts” and his highly empiricist, scientific (and I’d say sophisticated and correct) understanding of Historical Materialism, this tennent was a rejection of the application of both Western-style capitalism and representative democracy and the Soviet model. With that in mind, I changed the word “copied” to “were influenced”. They certainly didn’t copy the Tiger’s model, though the influence was invaluable.
Also, something had to be mentioned BRIEFLY about the Special Economic Zones, Hong Kong, and improving relations with the West. Soviet relations are also important.
Roadrunner’s croissant anecdote is humorous, but the role of France is a bit more important. There, he was exposed to Marxism and revolutionary ideas, like Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh.
Removed following sentence, which was POV: "The gravity of these concerns, however, pales in comparison to the social ills faced by China as late as the Tiananmen rebellion of 1989, not to mention the days of mass famine and civil war before the founding of the People's Republic. " soulpatch
soulpatch: I'm reverting that sentence. It's simply a fact. Apparently, you don’t know much about Chinese history.
- Sentences like "apparently you don't know much about Chinese history" are not an even remotely serious attempt at discussing the issue here. The Discussion pages are for discussing, not for dismissive comments like that. You need to justify your claims here when people challenge you. And to claim that the gravity of human rights concerns "pales in comparison" to other problems is an OPINION, not a fact. Any attempt at juggling human rights concerns versus other concerns is necessarily a value judgment. As soon as you want to try to write serious articles here that aren't blatant examples of POV, please join us in the Discuss page and try to hash out something. soulpatch
-
- Exactly, and even not withstanding that, there are a lot of people who think that China's economic problems today more much more serious and dangerous than those in 1989. I think that they are wrong, but that point of view needs to be mentioned.
I agree with Soulpatch's removal. *I* personally agree with the removed sentence, but a lot of people *don't*. Bao Tong, George Chang, Wei Jingsheng, He Qianling, most revolutionary Maoists to name a few.
To see the problem with the sentence, you don't need to understand much about Chinese history. Just Wikipedia NPOV guidelines.
I compromised. The sentence has been revised.
I still think that Soulpatch is being extreme about these NPOV guidelines. Pretty soon, we’ll have to follow the NPOV guidelines to placate Solipsists and conspiracy theorists.
- Thank you. I think that that your change is a step in the right direction. soulpatch
Soulpatch: I hope that you’re not one of those parochial Westerners who thinks that blocked internet usage does not pale in comparison to the catastrophes of the nineteenth century that killed hundreds of millions of people.
- What I think is irrelevant. This article needs to be NPOV. That means not asserting value judgments as if they were fact. soulpatch
-
- It is a very widely-held belief that that China under Deng's leadership, when measured against things like the Universal Declaration of human rights, didn't. It is not particularly controversial to state that China did at the time, and still does, suppress political dissent in ways unacceptable to many. This is entirely appropriate to mention in an article on Deng, just as it is to mention that, say, Winston Churchill was amongst the idiots responsible for the military catastrophe at Gallipoli, or for that matter that Bill Clinton was fellated by an intern and lied under oath about it.
I'm TALKING with you in the TALK section. Lighten up.
- Okay, fair enough. But I think we are at cross purposes here. I understand that you think that modern human rights abuses are not as bad as previous problems in China. You may even be right. What I am trying to say is this--who is to say whether one bad thing pales in comparison to another bad thing? Should such a statement really belong in an encyclopedia? soulpatch
Actually, the Chinese people have more individual freedom now than ever. That's fairly hard to dispute.
