In my post to you, I already posted what I was responding to:
"The "progess" in China in recent years has been material, not in terms of human rights."
I don't think it's at all unclear where you stand in this matter.
"My entire point was about the lack of human or political rights in China, while I allowed for changes in material circumstances. Your list of economic changes is simply wide of the point."
My (and all others' who have posted here) point is that rich people are always more free than poor people. That's why we fixate on the economic changes, as we believe those are proper, nay only, course toward China's development as a capitalist democracy and a strong ally to the US. You deny this thesis in its entirety,
"Yes, I gather there have been significant reforms in economic areas. Chinese still lack the most basic of political or human rights."
But in any case, even judging things along your lines, you are still incorrect, because you allow for little difference between current and past regimes. Tell me, would you respect them more if they called themselves "free-market reformers" rather than "Communists"? Labels, fables, smables. Maybe they were useful when communism was an ideology that was actually practiced (such as it was). Not today, where leaders of all stripes are judged by their ability to reform, deregulate, liberalize, and uphold the rule of law. Again, I maintain that China has had more of a go at that than say, the French.
Look at the so-called democracy Russia. "Democrat" Yeltsin's choice of "crony capitalist" Chermyrdin (sp?) was frustrated by the "communists" in Congress in partnership with "leftist reformers" of the Yabloko party. Yeltsin's failure resulted in the rise of "communist spymaster" Primakov. In any case, the end result is that Russia has a leader whose main objective is professionalism and stability rather than one who looks out for himself and his buddies. Who's the real democrat? |
