From: jlam@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lord Automato)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.hongkong,soc.culture.taiwan,talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Chinese Running Dog
Date: 14 Dec 1992 22:54:52 +1100
Organization: University of Melbourne
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au


In article <1ghb0lINNki7@agate.berkeley.edu>, bhchan@soda.berkeley.edu (Billy H. Chan) writes:
|> In article <NSS=zy+@engin.umich.edu> chyang@periphrasis.engin.umich.edu (Chung Hsiung Yang) writes:
|> 
|>  >> Communism was a good attempt to get rid of all the politicians et.al,
|>  >> but alas, the implimentation of one man's dream led to corruption
|>  >> etc.etc.etc.  In fact, the basic premise of Communism was equality.
|>  >
|>  >	Yes.  Equality.  They did achieve equality everyone equally poor
|>  >and everyone equally powerless.  Unless you are a member of the ruling
|>  >party of course.
|> Again, I said the implimentation was corrupt.  If I recollect the original
|> ideals of communism, it was to be a utopian society, where everyone was
|> equal (of course, they had assumed equally well off).
|> As you correctly point out later, I am an idealist. (so sue me)

An implemenation which you know for yourself that doesn't work is only of academic
interest, most of the time it is the idealistists , not necessarily you, who
ruin a country. We are talking about human welfare and human lives here, 
idealism may provide more harm in the case of politics. I am not saying ideals 
of communism are bad, but if it doesn't work, you have to be realistic and
change it.

|> 
|>  >> Democrasy was also a good attempt to get rid of all the politicians,
|>  >> the nobility of then despotic Europe (from which the United States
|>  >> originally came from).  The Founding Fathers (short sighteed as they
|>  >> were) originally hoped for equality.  However, another good idea
|>  >> botched in implimentation.
|>  >
|>  >	Hmm... maybe.  But one has more right in a democratic society.
|>  >The fact that you can write this post without being censored like you
|>  >would have been if you are in China does say something.
|> Only because of the implimentation of democracy and communism.
|> In the original idea, the people were supposed to rule themselves, since
|> there was supposed to be no 'ruler' at all.  Again, I'm comparing the
|> ideals, not the reality.  It is, after all, the ideas behind the system
|> that I enjoy comparing.

Unfortunately, it is the people who are living under the system that is 
suffering, academic comparsions don't cost a life, but a bad system in
real life does kill.

|>  >> Perhaps, one may hope to join the CCP in making a change.  Perot was
|>  >> going to do that for the US (make a change, get the power out of the
|>  >> politician's hands and back to the people).
|>  >
|>  >	Yes.  There are quite a few, namely the right wingers of CCP.
|>  >But they are largely suppressed by the hardliners or the left wingers.
|>  >Most recently, one of the most proment reformers was forced down in the
|>  >eve of the TAM incident.  So much for change.  
|> And why are they suppressed?  Because there aren't enough of them, right?
|> So, what would happen if there are moree right wingers than lefties and
|> hardliners?  Would you say there will be a higher chance for change?  I
|> hope so.  I want China to regain the prestige (or more like arrogance)
|> that it wielded earlier this millenium.  

One needs a better system to govern, communism with authoritairan rule is 
definitely a bad system. 

Don't put nationalism in front of humanitarianism, only the latter can save
people. 

If you want to talk about ideals, humanitarianism is a higher ideal than
nationalism or patriotism.


|> After the hardliners all die (they are old, right?) who will ascend
|> "the throne"?  If enough rightwing (right wing? I thought those were
|> the conservatives.  well, you said above that the right wingers were
|> pro-change, so I'll stick with that) politicians gain power, do you
|> think they will subcome to the dark powers of greed, or do you think
|> they will make a change?  For China's sake, I hope my idealistic 
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> notions win over your more realistic facts.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is utterly nonsensicle.


|>  >	Its good to be an idealist, but it also good sometimes to 
|>  >be a realist and really see what is going on.
|> I have seen reality, but I have found it much too depressing for me.
|> It is more palatable to be an idealist.

This is rather silly, you want to remain blind or burying your head under
the sand in order not to see the real life suffering of people,
is that what you said? What such ideals are good for? 

Lin Can
=========================================================================
.-- .... --- . ...- . .-. -.. . -.-. --- -.. . ... - .... .. ...
--. . - ... -. --- - .... .. -. --.        
.-.. .. ..-. . .. ... ... .... --- .-. - .-- --- .-. -.- .... .- .-. -..
                                                   .-.. .. -. -.-. .- -.
=========================================================================
                                          

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china