From: liqiang@kramden.nyu.edu (Li)
Subject: Re: Political Prostitutes or Democractic Activitists ?
Organization: New York University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:59:51 GMT


mlibucha@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Libucha) writes:

>In article <liqiang.722458216@kramden> liqiang@kramden.nyu.edu (Li) writes:
>>mlibucha@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Libucha) writes:
>>
>>>	If I am reading the analogy right, I don't think that CMFN is like
>>>burning the building down. It's more like picketing in front of the building.
>>
>>>	The loss of MFN (which I am NOT advocating) is not the catastrophic
>>>disaster that many are making it out to be. No one is starving in China.
>>>Most people have a decent place to live. The standard of living is quite
>>>low, yes, but if it stays where it is, very few people will suffer the
>>>loss of health or life because of it.
>>
>>So, Mark, you mean "Let them suffer"?

>No, because I don't think that the average person in China is suffering,
>except in terms of repression by the government. They may desperately want
>the material life that much of the West enjoys, but I don't call that
>suffering. 

I wouldn't call that suffering either - it's their extreme anguish and
a dream cherished by generations to live as decently as just anybody
else on the earth.

>I call living in a Chinese political prison suffering.

Agreed. The following, though less severe in magnitude, are more
overwhelming and omnipresent in present China:

I call having to take a bus in Shanghai suffering; I call being ill-treated
by shop-assistants suffering; I call being unable to find a decent
public toilet suffering; I call living with 7 people in a college 
dorm suffering; ......

>And again I repeat, I want China to keep its MFN status. I want to see China
>grow strong. But in my opinion (and I know most people disagree with me), I
>don't think that economic freedom is going to solve the real problems that
>are holding China back.

Only time will tell.

>China is a car; MFN will keep the gas tank full; but there's a madman at 
>the wheel. 

>I understand the arguments that economic freedoms in China will lead to
>human rights. However, I don't agree with them. I'd rather concentrate on
>getting rid of the madman. And I don't think that the loss of MFN would
>cause great loss of life in China. 

Other netters have already commented on this point.

>>
>>>	The real suffering in China is due to the corrupt and authoritarian
>>>government as it effects individuals who oppose it.
>>
>>Mr. Libucha, it puzzles me why you think it is not "the catastrophic
>>disaster" if china's standard of living "stays where it is". It has stayed
>>"where it is" for 150 yrs and you don't think we have had enough? Ask Mr.
>>George Bush how a 0% annual growth rate would have helped him get reelected? 
>>
>>Well, you admitted that China's standard of living is "quite low"; that's why
>>it is even more important to have a dynamic GROWTH. There ARE still people
>>starving in China and most people DON'T have a decent place to live. Every
>>hardworking Chinese deserves the same quality of living standard as that
>>of every hardworking American (like yourself). What do you think of this?

>>- Li, Qiang
>I don't think this is relevant. Do I deserve the same quality of life as
>Ross Perot, the queen of England, or Deng Xiaoping? Do they work any harder
>than me, or you, or anybody else? 

Ross Perot, yes, if you are as smart and have a wife as understanding;
the queen of England, no, but in China we say, "Hao3 nan2 bu4 he2 nu3 dou1."
(A gentleman is never bothered to lick a lady);
Deng Xiaoping, definitely not, this guy is just too tough - you must know
he did a lot outdoor camping in the mid-30s; he went through the humiliation
of being dumped by his ex-wife; he was downed 3 times by the CCP - if you,
Mark, want to deserve his quality of life, take my advice: spend a little
less time on the net.

>I'd like to see everyone in China have a standard of living like that we
>enjoy in the U.S., but that's not the point. If the wealth in China is going
>to be invested in the CCP (and it will be), I'd rather not contribute to it.

My concern is some people might make the same mistake the CCP made over
the past 40 yrs. Somehow, I see a connection between the concepts of
"poor socialism" (pursued by the gang of four) and democracy on top
of economy. I hope I'm not worrying too much on this issue.

>Mark

- Li, Qiang

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,talk.politics.china