From: bhchan@soda.berkeley.edu (Billy H. Chan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.hongkong,soc.culture.taiwan,talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Chinese Running Dog
Date: 14 Dec 1992 06:53:09 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <NSS=zy+@engin.umich.edu> chyang@periphrasis.engin.umich.edu (Chung Hsiung Yang) writes:
>
>	Oh!  That was me, C. H. Yang.  The Anti-Communist Chinese.
>Not Jian Chen, the communist Chinese.
Sorry, that's what I get for not quoting the original article.

>	Yes, sure.  CCP is based on the Russian system.   The rise of CCP
>came from an outside source, but it is still not an Chinese invention.
>Yes, it is still foreign invation because the Russians wanted to gain an
>allie against the West so it help to establish an government in Chinese.
>That is pretty foreign to me.  
>
Hmmmm, so unless China goes back to a monarchy, any other system would
be a foreign invasion, right?
Actually, now that I think about it, communism and the old Empire system
has only two differences.  The titles and the merchantile class.


 >> 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)

 >> 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.

 >	Yes, the founding father you speak off did realize the limitation
 >of democracy.  But they attempted to give people as much right as possible
 >without violating the right of others.  
and indeed, the succeeded.  Succeed so well that we have a whole class of
people who's main ocupation is to look after the rights of others.  Beats
trying to figure out new technology to employ tthe unemployed (or redeploy
the already employed.  The occupation turnover rate is about 5 years now)
 >
 >> 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.  

 >> So, if Jian's argument is that the only reason one would join CCP is
>	You mean C. H. Yang's argument.
Sorry again.

 >	Well.  Yes and no.  This will hold in countries like Chile, 
 >Cuba, Burma, or even Solmalia most definitely.  But in a country
 >like the US.  one does not need to have this connect in order to
 >live a better life.  Although it is a simple road to a good life.
Simple road to a good life v. live a better life.  Degrees of the
same thing?
 >
 >	However, in China, as a government official, or if you
 >have connections, you can do pretty much anything you want.  There
 >is no concept of political scandel with the exception if you go
 >against the party.  
True, very true.  I hope they change.  Then again, China is not a 
nation known for change.  I don't even think most of the older Chinese
population want to change.  "Leave well enough as it is" (I think that
is a Chinese Proverb, if not paraphrased totally)
 >
[very good examples to support argument about concept of scandel and
how it would be handled in current regime]
 >
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.

 >	I can tell from your post that you are probably fresh out of
 >high school.  Although I may be wrong, many people on this net act
 >like they are still in high school.  
I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not being a 
presumptious insect when you attempt to belittle my (and then all the
other netter's) intellect with that statement. 
If by fresh out of highschool you mean one or two years, then you 
are correct.  
 >
 >	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.

>	Although it probably wouldn't do you too much good at 
>Berkeley, the hot bed of American Leftist Thinking. 
Again, an insult?  I hope you don't feel like you need to stoop
down to the level of insulting the other people in this debate.
If it helps, I claim to be an Anarchist.  However, I will continue
to vote Republican until a real candidate shows up on the platform.  

>- C. H. Yang
I'll remember that next time, and attribute stuff correctly.
No excuses.

>> Just IMHO.  Free of charge.
Applies for this post too.

Also, for those who dare criticize _my_ grammer, have you read some
of the other stuff that are posted within this newsgroup?  Or have
you people been flaming them too?  (no wonder so few people post,
with all you selfproclaimed NetPolice arrogant bastards e-mailing
people who may just be new to English.  This IS schk.  If you must
criticize someone's grammer, let me direct you to my linguistics
professor.  He'll show you what he thinks about prescriptivist
linguists.)  
Plus, posting at 2 or 3 in the morning can do wonders to your
vocab, let alone your gramatical and spelling skills.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*	Billy H. Chan		<bhchan@ocf.berkeley.edu> 	*
*	Lost at Cal!!!   	<bhchan@soda.berkeley.edu>	*
-----------------------------------------------------------------