why are those people in china acting like a holes.

I hope all of our new Chinese posters take care not to put themselves at risk for capital punishment while they're posting here.

Freedom of Expression and the Internet in China
A Human Rights Watch Backgrounder

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/china-bck-0701.htm
INTERNET IN CHINA

As the Internet industry continues to expand in China, the government continues to tighten controls on on-line expression. As recently as July 11, 2001, President Jiang Zemin condemned the spread of "pernicious information" on the Net and called existing legislation "inadequate." (1) Since 1995, when Chinese authorities began permitting commercial Internet accounts, at least sixty sets of regulations have been issued aimed at controlling Internet content. The broadly-worded regulations represent a clear violation of the right to freedom of expression, and the government is devoting considerable time and resources to trying to implement them. (2)

As of January 2001, sending "secret" or "reactionary" materials over the Internet became a capital crime. Generally, however, persons convicted for their use of the Internet have received sentences of between two and four years, and we are not aware of anyone having been charged under Internet-specific regulations. Instead, they have all been found guilty of violating provisions of the Criminal Code. The elaborate regulatory framework serves, however, as a statement of policy, a justification for monitoring and surveillance, a set of guidelines for what constitutes "illegal" activity, and a deterrent to Internet users.

The government's determination to censor on-line content has grown with Internet usage. Improved infrastructure, introduction of mobile phones, and other low-cost methods of connection to the Internet, as well as increased local language content, have fueled that growth. The main contact points connecting China's Internet system with the worldwide system consists of nine so-called Internet Access Providers controlling the physical lines to the outside world. By July 2001 these access providers accommodated some 620 Internet Service Providers (ISPs) who served in turn some 1,600 Internet Content Providers (ICPs) and an estimated 26,000,000 users by the government's own conservative estimates. (3)

This backgrounder examines the development of China's repressive regulatory framework, its surveillance and closures of Internet cafés, and the detention of Internet users.

 

If we had capital punishment for stupid Internet posting in America, AOL wouldn't exist.

 

...and the cc.net membership would be greatly diminished as well.

 

Your basically correct aboute the socialism - communism, i think. I'm not sure if one of the steps towards true communism is called socialism, but I do know that socialism is also something else. There are many socialistic parties in Europe and the large ones are social democrats or other left-liberals.

People aren't born different, they're only born in different milieus and with different prerequisites.

 

To give more credibility to what I posted earlier, I am a U.S. citizen and attends Stony Brook University in NY where my Chinese "American" political science professor teaches.

 

I am Chinese, China is a communism country. Don’t tell me I’m wong.

 

Amen to that brother... AMEN!!!

Not calling China communist and totalitarian is like not calling Karl Malone a dirty player.

 

Arguing about whether or not China is a communist country is ridiculous.

Until there are:
1. Fair and free elections.
2. Courts that use juries.
3. Rights to free speech and religion...

China MAY have capitalist leanings, but it is not a democracy, hence it is either:
1. Communist
2. Fascist
3. Totalitarian
4. A monarchy

Take your pick.

 

That's not very nice.

BK

 

I think your Chinese "American" professor's opinions greatly differ from those of many other Chinese students, professors and citizens who were there at the square.

I think the persecution of Christians, Falun Gong members and the Tibetans help to form that "cruel" image a little bit. I'd be scared to hear your professor's view on why there is no freedom of religion. Guess he thinks it might lead to capitalism and total chaos . Hell, just crush'em with tanks before total chaos breaks out. According to your prof., it wouldn't be of much news in China.

 

firsod, who are you talking to? Remain calm and peaceful. Most Americans love their Chinese brothers and sisters.

 

Who are you talking to?

 

Nobody, anymore.

 

That would shure be convinient, but Yao is not an american college player and his situation is more complicated.

The CBA, the Sharks, etc ofcourse want resourses to develope their league, team and chinese basketball in general or just for luxary products for themselves or whatever. When they see a chance to get something ofcourse they won't pass that up. Why would they just give us Yao without a negotiation? You can't except people to fold like that. Why would you say they're acting like a-holes?

 

That's what I meant. People start out differently in life because of circumstances like the success of their parents. Some people are born with a disadvantage like some form of disability. We all have to capability to succeed, but some of us just have to work harder than others. It's like somebody born in a wealthy family has an easier shot of going to an Ivy league school than somebody from 5th Ward. My favorite example is G. W. Bush. His transcript wasn't exactly Yale material, but he had an advantage because of the success of his dad.

 

It depends on how you define communism. I've never heard of a definition that combined comminism with a market economy and capitalism though. I'm not saying China has a free market and I'm certanly not saying China is a democracy. China doesn't have a planned economy anymore and therefor is beyond any definition of communism that I would accept.

 

First of all some people have already posted things similar to this, but whether or not a country is communist has nothing to do with Free elections, free speech etc.

Socialism can be 100% democratic, and Communism is basically a financial policy. And someone already posted examples of Capitalist countries that are not democratic. So democracy and Capitalism aren't the same thing either.

We are talking about Monetary philosophy when we talk about Communism and Capitalism.

 

Communism is not just a financial policy. It is a whole political ideology that also touches on economic policy as well. If you have ever read Marx you would understand this. That has always been the problem with communism. In democracy, there is no particular economic policy. The point is, every one gets a say in what that policy is by their vote. So, if the voters decide on a socialist economic system, great. If not, great too. The people have spoken.

In communism (as we know it today), the leadership decides for everyone what is best. Leaders are not elected because communism looks at elections as inherently corrupt. Communism also sees any accumulation of wealth by any one person as evil. We all know that part of it hasn't worked, but that is still the basic philosophy. And, the government can step in at any time to take away what you own and redistribute the wealth. You essentially have no property rights. It is economic ideology mixed with philosophy.

Also, China is not socialist, it is communist. If you are not a member of the Communist party, you do not serve in the Chinese government. Period. No ifs ands or buts.

Until they change the name of the party, and until they have free elections, and until someone who gets thrown in jail there has inalienable rights to a jury trial, they are communist, in my opinion.

 

I think my professor would feel the same as any democracy-lover would feel about freedom of religion or freedom of any kind. That's why he fled to the U.S. immediately after the Tienamen Square event.

I was only talking about the Tienamen Square incident and nothing else. I was shocked when he told the class what he thought about Tienamen Square. The whole class was shocked when he said the Chinese did the right thing when they were trying to run him over with the tanks. People really need to understand the whole picture, the structure of the chinese government, the events that have occurred, and the consequences that it will bring, to understand why it was right. I think most of you are not experts on China. Neither am I, but my professor convinced me and the entire class about Tienamen Square. He's the most intelligent professor I have had and he studied the Chinese government and politics most of his life so I would take his words for it.

The protests were getting out of hand so Deng XiaoPing, head of state at that time, warned the students several times that the soldiers would run them over if they didn't stop. The students didn't believe him and you know what the consequence was. If you are in the shoes of Deng, in a socialist country, as someone pointed out that China is not completely communist, what would you do? Say "Oh, i'm just bluffing, you could continue and do whatever you want?" Imagine how Deng would lead the country and control 1.3 BILLION people if he can't even control a few hundred or thousands of students??? It was the right thing to do in a "socialist country" not a democracy, but a socialist country in that situation. We can't change that fact that China is socialist. If it was a democracy then all this wouldn't happen. Deng had no choice but to suppress them that way. (Should we blame China for this or should we blame socialism/communism?) Again I think you would really need to be almost an expert in Chinese politics to get the complete picture.

Here's an analogy: let's say Phil says to Shaq "if you don't come to practice, I'll bench you!" Shaq misses not one, not two, but three or four practices. Most of you would agree that the game is about winning. It is bad but would it be wrong if Phil puts Shaq on the bench? Laker fans wouldn't want that!

Or how about this: You have two choices, 1) shoot some guy in the head or 2) let that same guy bomb the White House.

Whether it's Tienamen Square or persecution of Tibetans, they all sum up to issues about Human Rights. I would like to make another comparison of China to the U.S.. In times of war and when the "national security" is in danger the U.S. gov't, in many ways, resemble China's. What did the U.S. did to the Japanese Americans during WW II? I think you can relate this to the Tienamen Square situation.

My analogies aren't the best, but I think you would get the idea.

Sorry... I didn't explain myself clearly or didn't say it the right way when I said "it wasn't big news to China." What I really meant to say is that the Chinese citizens didn't see it as bad as the Americans did. I'm sure everyone in China knew about it.