Talk:Chinese Communist Party
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Shall we note who's on the Central Committee, who's on the Politburo, and who's on the Standing Committee? If so, how?--GABaker
Removed Hua Guofeng. I don't remember if he is still in the Central Committee, but he hasn't been in the Politburo or had any real power since the early 1980's.
Also removed the note about advanced age and retirement policy. The members of the Politburo don't see particularly old to me (they are mostly in the 60's), and they will be really young after the handover of power that is coming up. Also, there is an informal retirement age policy, but it wasn't promulgated by Jiang Zemin, rather it was one of those things that seems to have been enacted by consensus.
- Hua Guofeng is not even in the party anymore. He resigned two or three years ago, claiming that the CPC was virtually the same as the Guomindang/Kuomintang nowadays. Shorne 02:10, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hua Guofeng was in the Central Committee until 2002. Since he was Mao's chosen successor, he was given special exemption to the retirement rule as homage to Mao and on the account that he no longer held power. Are there sources for him quitting the party? The wikipedia article says rumors of "health" problems. Roadrunner made those comments before the 16th Congress. --Jiang 02:49, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I'll try to find a reference. I read about it in Chinese a couple of years ago. Evidently he had to pay a large fee (membership dues or something; I'm hazy on the details) just to be allowed to leave the party. Shorne 03:02, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm basing my comments partly on this: "Former CPC general secretary Hua Guofeng, ever appointed successor by Chairman Mao Zedong and a CCCPC member for four Party congresses, also retired as an octogenarian from the 16th CCCPC. 'This marks the end of a past era', a Beijing-based foreign diplomat said." (People's Daily). I also remember reading in some centrist US news magazine (TIME, Newsweek or whatever) pre-16th Congress that incorrectly predicted Hua would be kept in the Central Committee in the 16th. --Jiang 21:25, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Also removed reference to Li Peng being head of internal security. He doesn't have any special internal security power that I an aware of. Also removed line about Li Ruihuan being a rival to Jiang Zemin. There really isn't any clear reason to think that this is the case.
This is the information I've been getting off the press wires, including the age policy and positions. I agree with the assessment of Li Ruihan. Hua Guofeng is still on the Politburo, if not the Standing Committee. ?--GABaker
No. Hua Guofeng was removed from the Politburo in 1982. He probably still is in the Central Committee. Reference....
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0018944.html
- Hua Guofeng is no longer in the party. See above. Shorne 02:10, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Have to be careful with wire service reports. They are sometimes shockingly inaccurate.
- True. Thus we balance topicality with accuracy. Oh, well. --GABaker
Shouldn't this page be named Communist Party of China or whatever the correct name is?
- Of course, please determine the correct name and do that. Fred Bauder 12:20 Nov 13, 2002 (UTC)
Hmm, the form Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is used in CIA World Factbook http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html#Govt
The form Communist Party of China (CPC) is used on the page "Political Parties and Social Organizations" of china.org.cn/
http://www.china.org.cn/e-china/politicalsystem/politicalOrgnization.htm
which is given as a link for "China in Brief" info on the web site of the Embassy of the People's Republic of China in the United States of America
http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/c2685.html
I'd say embassy trumps CIA. Comments, please?
Probably Communist Party of China is better. I've seen both, but CPC fits Wikipedia conventions
--user:Roadrunner
Is it worth putting in a sentence about the "translation" from the Chinese name of the party to English? Or even simply an acknowledgement of the difference in Chinese? A better translation would be "People's Assets Party", of course I will defer to anyone whose Chinese is better than mine! --Shannonr 06:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This should be restored:
"The Communist Party of China is the most diabolical organization that has ever existed. It has more blood on its hands than any regime in human history:Tens of millions slaughtered in the terrorist campaign to seize control of the country, tens of millions starved to death because of evil Communist Policies, tens of millions of political murders, tens of millions dead due to campaigns of genocide that are still ongoing, and unspeakable poverty due to the failures of Communism. " JoeM
- sorry. strongly POV. BTW, there was no real genocide, but you can't see it if you are blinded by your hatre of Communist Party of China. wshun
Well, where is the "history" section? wshun 20:09, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
First, I'd like to clarify that the new paragraphs aren't mine, but Roadrunner's. Although toned down, the hysterical charges by JoeM that are being reinserted distort the balance of the article. Roadrunner articulated the points of both those critical and supportive in an appropriate manner. In addition, the charges of "tens of millions of political murders" and campaigns of "genocide" are inappropriate. Even the most egregious estimates of executions under Mao come nowhere close to "tens of millions." JoeM seems to be confusing famine with executions. 172 11:45, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Hi 172, I think the criticisms should still be reported, even if (perhaps especially if) untrue. The fact that many people in the West think (for example) that the famines were intentional is a major factor in foreign perceptions of China -- JoeM's opinions represent one way that the Chinese government is perceived, and we should report that. If you can then balance that with evidence that these accusations are untrue, or add the opinions of others that they are untrue, this builds up the full NPOV picture. -- The Anome 11:55, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Those hysterical accusations cannot be sufficiently addressed in this article, but in the article on PRC history. In addition, JoeM's thinking is out of pace with the times even here in the United States. Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) is law; "constructive engagement" (now dubbed "strategic competition" by the Bush administration) is the norm; and the PRC has attained WTO membership. His opinions are those of a fringe of the American right. Most Republicans in the House and the Senate supported PNTR and so does the Republican president. Right now, top priority vis-à-vis China among mainstream American observers and policymakers is the debate over fixed or floating exchange rates for the yuan. 172 12:09, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- These are not fringe arguments. They are not hysterical. Many people blame Mao for the famines that occured during the 1950s/60s. Note that the criticisms do not blame the current leadership. If you want to keep removing criticism for the CCP, then I will remove support of it in the following paragraph. If criticism is not allowed then support is not allowed. I will also remove support of the CPC in the Li Peng and History of the PRC articles. That's the only way the article can be balanced. Your "contructive engagement" argument is irrelevant. That is for the US government to do, not for an encyclopedia. Are we afraid to piss off the commies here? --Jiang 21:47, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The famine claim isn't dubious, but the "tens of millions of political murders" rant from JoeM is. But this is beyond the point. This is an article on the CPC, not Chinese history. Thus, it's a digression. What I am leaving in the text is far better written and far, relevant, and succinct and accomplishes the task of presenting the views of critics. What I am removing, however, cannot be addressed in proper detail in this article, which is not on Chinese history. 172 22:19, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- The Anome has already edited out the emotional "tens of millions of political murders" rant and made it NPOV. The statements belong because it speaks directly of party leadership and legacy, which pertains to its viability in the future. Are we to edit out the bull in Ronald Reagan, specifically, "During his administration, there was a major scandal and investigation of his administration's covert support of wars in Iran and Nicaragua in what came to be known as the Iran-Contra Affair. A member of his administration had sold arms to the Iranian government, and given the revenue to the contras in Nicaragua. Reagan's quick call for the appointment of an Independent Counsel to investigate, and cooperation with counsel, kept the scandals from affecting his presidency. It was found that the president was guilty of the scandal only in that his lax control of his own staff resulted in his ignorance of the arms sale. " just because that is not an article on American history? Of course not! That's because he was responsble/involved. --Jiang 22:29, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I don't see any point in including the disputed passages under that heading. Anome's text is a lot more NPOV than the earlier writing, but it seems IMHO irrelevant in that context, when it is discussed in detail elsewhere. FearÉIREANN 22:42, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- It's a lot less than what is put under the legacy section of Li Peng. You should also take note on the environment/patriot act sections of the George W. Bush article. It always been the case that the implementor of the policy gets a mention of it in his/her/its article. --Jiang 22:51, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Now that there has been a rewrite, the content is now fine. Dispute over. 172 09:52, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Supporters of Tibet nationalists and Taiwan independence, extreme right wing politicians in United States of America and Japan, are among the group which has represented the government of China by the CPC as a totalitarian regime
I don't think only the extreme right wing politicians accuse the Chinese gov't of being totalitarian. Int'l human-right organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International accuse it of being totalitarian as well. The US gov't as a whole also view the Chinese gov't as a totalitarian gov't in its annual human rights report.
128.195.100.178 03:37, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
User:128.195.100.178:
- I wrote this earlier today, assuming that this was the article on the People's Republic of China. I clicked on the talk page link after taking a look at the recent changes on my watchlist, and was under the mistaken impression that this was the PRC article. I would not have been as hard on this anon had I realized this. However, I still maintain that we need to keep the typologies out. 172 17:33, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I can't stand starting my morning with yet another example of strong anti-China opinions and little knowledge: this is a secton of the article on the structures and institutions of PRC government, not the regime typology picked by outside activists imbued with the white man's burden. The paragraph in question just ought to be removed. Why don't we remove the typologies all together, and quit conflating ideal-type typologies, used in comparative politics for the purposes of research are and cross-regional comparisons, with regime-types? I'm tired of having to explain on page after page that these terms are not regime-types (e.g., monarchy, constitutional monarchy, parliamentary democracy, federal republic, Communist state, military regime, etc.). Can we all agree to use terms precisely, in their proper context, recognizing the proper definitions? If people here would just realize that it's impossible for Wikipedia to endorse typologies, and that a regime typology is not a regime-type, a lot of the most trivial disputes that I've encountered on Wiki could have been avoided. First, a regime-type is what belongs under the heading of government-type. It is the basic constitutional structure – and the officially codified relationship between layers of government and/or party structures, relationship between the party and/or state and military, and the nature of the party and/or state leadership and decisional hierarchy. I keep on stating "party and/or state" because there's always a state, and sometimes a party/state (such as CPC-rule of the PRC). Yes, sometimes sometimes this tells us nothing, and typologies do have their place. However, we can distinguish the nominal government-type from the practice in the remaining sections, without picking one scholar's typology over another. Although the approaches vary considerably, a typology is a theoretical conception often considering the state/party decisional flow beyond the scope of what's on paper, the nature of the party and/or state relationship vis-à-vis civil society, and the pluralism afforded (not just stated on paper) within the regimes structures and institutions. It takes into account variables of pluralism, civil society, and political culture related to the regime-type. And often other variables are far more determining of the typology than the regime-type. However, typologies are entirely inappropriate when conflated with regime-type, and they cannot be endorsed by a neutral sourcebook and encyclopedia. On of the idiosyncrasies of comparative politics is the rate at which these typologies – along with their diminishing sub-types even, proliferate and change over the years, and the frequent disagreements that arise over applying them to different regions. For over a generation, the tripartite distinction between authoritarianism, democracy, and totalitarianism has given way to hundreds of different approaches for categorizing typologies – so the approaches don't even overlap. Beginning in the 1970s, the top Soviet specialists in the West began finding that models of "institutional pluralism", "bureaucratic pluralism," "post-totalitarianism," or various interest groups approaches were far more suggestive and helpful in figuring out the inner workings of the Soviet regime than the old totalitarian model. In additon, serious scholars do not use the old totalitarian model for China these days. Furthermore, there will never be any consensus behind a universal approach to classifying regime typologies. Thus, endorsing a typology is impossible due to the NPOV guidelines. Nor would a consensus be needed. Any set of regime typologies could be more analytically useful to a researcher depending on the purpose employed. Based on empirical evidence, a specialist will have to determine which sets of typologies are best suited for his/her inquiry. Typologies can vary, and can even proliferate whenever new patterns seem to be emerging that do not fit old models. New evidence can trigger the modification. In addition, the classification schemes all have their temporal and regional confines. Some might be more ambitious than others, while others might be narrowed to a particular region or anything else for that matter. The term "totalitarianism," however, has moved from the ivory tower to popular discourse in the context of the Cold War, when the United States was mobilizing domestic and international agitation against the Soviet Union. Construing the simplified little epic of "totalitarianism versus democracy," while crushing moves toward democratization at times, and coddling some of the most bloody and repressive regimes in Latin American, Africa, and Southeast Asian history often at the same time, the term caught on and is used more in the context of propaganda than scholarship these days. However, whether as propaganda or typology, the term "totalitarian" doesn't belong in this article. 172 12:44, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The term totalitarian *does* belong in the article because there are large and politically significant groups which see the CCP as totalitarian. I think they are nuts, but their views are significant enough to be worth mentioning.
Roadrunner 15:44, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
- I agree that the term belongs, within that context, and that the people who see the CPC as totalitarian are nuts. Shorne 02:10, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Also, changed the paragraph. There isn't anyone political significant who denies that millions of people died in the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. The issue is interpreting what that fact (which is undisputed) means.
Roadrunner 15:44, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
- There are indeed disputes over those "millions", and even the CPC—which today bashes the Cultural Revolution at every turn and even puts the very name in quotation marks—has not taken the numbers for the Cultural Revolution beyond about 40 thousand. But these debates should be fought out in the respective articles on the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, not here. Shorne 02:10, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
我操，CCP简直无耻之极
太无耻了！！！
How can that be the flag of the Communist Party of China if that is the flag of the U.S.S.R... Squash 05:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)