Talk:China

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles.

An event mentioned in this article is an October 1 selected anniversary.

For earlier material see Talk:China/old, Talk: China (Archive 1) and Talk: China (Archive 2) Talk: China (Archive 3) Talk: China (Archive 4)

Who moved People's Republic of China to China and why ? That's very inapropriate. Taw 21:02 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

I forget his name, he was a sysop, since retired. My impression was that the purpose was to establish that there was one China and that the People's Republic was it. There was an extended debate, and this organization of the articles on China was established. I would rather we went back to the old origanization which permitted both an extensive article on the People's Republic and on China (with substantial sections on history, culture and geography and other areas independent of matters relevant to the current political regime). Fred Bauder 13:06 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

There is currently a section in China on "Politics" with a main article link to Politics of China - is this sufficient? Could it be expanded? Martin 16:23 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

I think that for the moment what we find in the politics section is adequate. Look, I have done no research (I mean, scholarly research, meaning with an eye towards publishing in a peer-reviewed journal) on China. ALl I do know from my "lay" research is that there have been changes and divisions among scholars on how to define and apply these terms. The current wording of the politics section recognizes this. I think as with all articles here, we need to edit them into the best shape we can -- and leave room for or even invite real scholars to expands and elaborate. Of course what we have can and should be expanded -- but it can wait, especially until a political scientist or sociologist currently conducting research on the Chinese state becomes a contributor.

In the meantime, though, the opening line, which once again defines China as a "communist state," has to go. All I have done is gotten involved in a silly revert war with JTDIRL and I am tired of it. As I said, I think Danny's suggestion is fine. I also saw on the listserve that Jimbo came up with an excellent proposal. Anything I do, JTDIRL will revert -- I'd like you, Roadrunner, Danny, Prat, Shino, and JeLuf to just pick one of these -- Jimpo's Danny's, or JeLuf's -- and stick with it. Slrubenstein

I'm not ignoring this controversy. Daunted at the length of the debate and the massive amounts of steam coming out of the ears of three contributors that I have developed a great deal of respect for—JTD, SLR & 172—I decided it would be better to print the talk page and its archive out and read it in a less eye-strain inducing form. Then I ... er ... put it to one side "just for a few minutes" and wrote a new entry on an obscure Australian mamal. And then ... er ... another one. And two more. And now it's bedtime.

Procrastination. It's a wonderful thing. Don't know how I'd survive without it. Tannin 15:22 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

PS: with a little luck, the controversy will be happily settled by the time I wake up, and I can do Spinifex Hopping Mouse instead. Whoever said procrastination wasn't an effective time management strategy? Tannin

Since 172 and Jtdirl both agree that China is a republic, I reccomend :China is a republic in east Asia, governed by the Chinese Communist Party since 1949; which some argue to be a communist state, while others (including China itself) argue it to be a socialist state. Shino Baku

Nobody has ever said it was otherwise. But it isn't a republic in the liberal democracy model, but in the Communist state model. ÉÍREman 22:42 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

I like the change by anonymous contributor 12.208.71.103 172

""Once China's leaders focus on problems and are determined to take action, they usually manage to resolve them — sometimes with brutal efficiency," a Goldman Sachs report concluded. "You may call that a virtue of authoritarian government." [1] Fred Bauder 09:49 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

Refactor warning - the long and tedious debate over whether China is or is not communist is shortly going to be refactored down to its bare essentials. If you feel that there are vast chunks of brilliant prose within it that should be saved for posterity, do so now. Martin 23:46 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square was a critical watershed in the history of Chinese politics, and requires a great deal of attention in the history of the PRC article and the article on Chinese politics. But in an introductory paragraph it should be scrapped (it occurred almost 14 years ago) in favor of more recent developments, like labor unrest, the WTO, or the recent party congress and the new generation of leadership.

This is historical revisionism at work. Reality is somehow dependant on the need to suppress on minimize uncomfortable facts. The silence about democracy in China is probably more dependent on the perceived willingness of the state to engage in terror than on lack of interest. It was the Tiananmen Square Massacre which reinforced the credibility of the state's commitment to suppress dissent. For such purposes 14 years is a very brief period indeed. Fred Bauder 12:59 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

The democracy movement had also been featured too prominently as well. It's not a threat to the PRC domestically, but internationally, especially to Sino-US relations and legislation like the PNTR. The article made it sound as if there were a burgeoning opposition within China. Labor unrest, not the largely Western-base opposition movement is the major source of opposition in China today. 172

If it is "not a threat", why the extreme and continuing measures to suppress it? Fred Bauder 12:59 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Although it would be an understatement to say that Fred and I would disagree on matters of communism, he makes a valid point in what he recently stuck in at the top of this talk page. Most of the recent debate belongs at People's Republic of China, as does most of the present article. The title China should be reserved for the nation of China. I use "nation" in the strict sense of a cultural entity which need not coincide with the boundaries of any state, either past or present. In this way the nation of China is basically the "Han" state with boundaries that varied over the millenia. It allows for the argument that Tibet and other territories in the west of the PRC continue to be a part of the PRC but not a part of China. A similar argument can arise over Taiwan which is not a part of the PRC, and only became Chinese occupied at the end of the Ming dynasty. The range of debates over the "communist" nature of China can then be limited to the PRC article. Let's start bringing some clarity and simplicity to the subject. ☮ Eclecticology 18:59 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

I second it. Arguments of what kind of state China is should go to Politics of China. BTW what's exactly a socialist state? Someone's got to clarify the types of states that their arguments are based on. User:kt2

Yes, the proposed move has my support. - prat

My edits mainly entailed rephrasing a few values-laden and loaded terms. I tried to NPOV the section of politics, which had already been getting more concrete. The content in that section is now relatively good; it could stand to briefly go through some explanations for the autocratic policies, but its failure to do so is acceptable in a brief introduction. Good job to many contributors, even Fred Bauder, for largely sticking with specifics rather than emotive rhetoric. 172

"Even though a lot of democratic countries consider that China is a one-party county, there are still some other parties existing. Chinese Communist Party cooperates with them by a special commission rather than election. But the effect of the other parties on the government remains unknown. "

Typo at county in this one, but I draw attention to it for because while a naive reader of the People's Daily might consider it describe something real almost anyone else is aware that the political partners (the parties cited) have no real life, being a formal hangover from coalition building during the revolution. As to their effect on the government, it is well known to be nil. (Athough meetings actually do take place between the government and these "parties".) The same situation existed in Poland, even in Russia after the revolution when other parties were merged into the Communist Party and ceased to have any freedom of action Fred Bauder 11:53 18 May 2003 (UTC)

I admit that I am a really naive reader of People's Daily. You can take it as a POV rather than a fact. But comparing to France, I think that US has only two parties ( only one more than China), and the effect of other parties (like Communist Party of America) on the government remains unknow. (only a POV). -- Samuel 09:00 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Some wikipedians have drawn up discussions on proper Wikipedia format of the Name of Emperors at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). Readers of this article would also be interested to comment on the issue before a generally agreed format is decided by poll. thanx User:kt2 22:08 25 May 2003

The Chinese map in this page is not correctly right, because it doesn't show up the marginal sea of China. Samuel 09:00 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Samuel is referring to the South China Sea Islands. --Menchi 23:04 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Taw about moving the page to People's Republic, however he also needs to move the talk pages (all of them). Fred Bauder 22:42 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

No, NO, NO! Simply making this a disambiguation page is not at all the right thing to do. There are thousands of links to this page that expect an article. We have already agreed here, in the talk archives and on the mailing list that this article should be about China, the thousand year old cultural and ethnic entity and that the stuff that is only about the ROC or the PRC should be in separate articles. However, the PRC article is a mess and weaves in a whole bunch of stuff that should be at just China. I'm reverting this article until a proper split can be done. --mav

I have reverted to the previous version by Fred Bauder. Please, this discussion has gone on for ages and the consensus was not to disambigulate this page. This page needs work, but disambigulation is the worst possible solution, given the complexity, the number of links, etc., as Mav had clearly stated above. FearÉIREANN 00:17 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Move complete. --mav

I've moved a lot of the press censorship information to Media in China. This topic is sufficiently complex to warrant its own article.

I have substituted a link to criminalization for the one to crime in the politics section. What we are talking about is a technique of political control rather than ordinary crime. Fred Bauder 10:27 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think there are a number of rather basic facts about China on the two websites in the reference section which could be added to the article should someone chose that mission. Fred Bauder 02:24 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Not sure why the Constitution of China needs to be mentioned with respect to Taiwan. Most ot the rest of it is so much chicken scratching as far as it being controlling law which binds or restricts the tiny group of men who control China, why focus on that one part? I think somehow we need to develop the status of the constitution as more a collection of political slogans rather than as a legal document which in anyway shapes government policy. Fred Bauder 02:24 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I am wondering if the map here is suitable ( according to NPOV). It's alright in page China, but it's not so good to make the "ROC" so notable in this page because it's obvious against NPOV, it only considers the viewpoint of ROC, but does it express the viewpoint of RPC? (I don't think people from RPC will hold this point) I don't want this page to cause edit war. It should be marked up the special position of Taiwan, but not in this explicit way. It's clearly the viewpoint of people who want to independent, but ignore the other viewpoint. I think it's better not to marked up either PRC or ROC here. Can someone make a smarter solution?? --Samuel 02:44 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think this is the best way around it. The old unedited map made it seem like Taiwan was a part of the PRC, with the star for capital only over Beijing. The official viewpoint of the ROC is that it controls all of China, including Mongolia. However, the map shows contemporary borders, not the old ROC ones. The caption specifically states "areas controlled by the ROC and PRC" and ignores acutal claims, which overlap. Changing it back expresses the viewpoint of the PRC. The Taiwan indepdnence supporters will label what is "PRC" China and what is "ROC" Taiwan, so this map doesn't cater to their cause either. Jiang

So I think there is no need to mark up either PRC or ROC, we can use different color to show up the special position of Taiwan. If ROC exists now in mainland is rather a POV rather than a fact. (this map is alright in page China). In order to show up who controls which area, I suggest using the ruling parties rather than PRC and ROC. This map misguides readers that There are two Chinas, PRC and ROC. --Samuel 09:00 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

But that's the truth! There are two separate governments (and therefore literally two countries and "two Chinas")--the PRC and ROC governing the land colored in the map. Marking it is necessary as reference--to see who controls what. Why use the ruling parties instead of the government name itself? What difference does it make? The institutions of the two separate governments are imposed on their separate jursidictions and there's no use hiding that fact. Besides, what is the "ruling party" of the ROC when the pan-blue coalition controls the Legislative Yuan while the DPP controls the presidency? Yes, the two governments have overlapping claims, but the caption uses "controls" not "claims." What is "claimed" is left ignored. I still don't see how POV is seeping through this map... --Jiang 09:26 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I do agree with you that there are two separate governments, but not two countries (at least a lot of countries in the world don't admite Taiwan to be an independt country. No matter if it's because they benifit from PRC or something else. And we say Hong Kong government, but Hong Kong is not a country or a China.) But I don't think I will get involved in the endless arguement anymore, getting tired of it( I think a lot of Americans would be pleased to see Taiwan to be indenpent, then there would be less arguements). I think the Chinese version is doing better on it. Sometimes, using unclear definition can avoid arguement. My suggestion is adding a note like this " Only a few countries admit ROC government as an independent country" below the map to clearfy the situation. :D --Samuel 11:37 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The reason few countries officially recognize the ROC as a sovereign nation is because the PRC forbids them to. Either they admit that "Taiwan is part of the PRC" or they can't do business with mainland China--aside from fellow communist regimes, few countries are voluntarily taking the stand they do towards Taiwan and exercise defacto diplomatic relations ("American Embassy" is not "American Institute" but it functions like an embassy). As for the HK government, it is subordinate in many ways to the PRC government in official terms...Diplomatic recognition is irrelevant to sovereignty (especially if this recognition was a result of other influences). We are simply showing who controls what, not who has a right to what. No country in the world recognizes Taiwan as independent in the technical sense; it is the ROC that fits the description of a country--Taiwan is just (incorrectly) used interhchangeably with that. I just think the note is irrelevant. It doesnt matter that only 27 countries recognizes the ROC--it's there and it exists! Discussions of that go to Political status of Taiwan and Foreign relations of Taiwan. (sorry for barraging you with political material you didn't want to see....) --Jiang 22:24 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I am wondering where the cross-language links r gone? shall we add them? :O --Samuel 17:06, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries

All this should be RESTORED IMMEDIATELY:

The People's Republic of China (PRC) is the self-proclaimed name of the totalitarian regime of that the Communist Party imposes on China. Red China is an inhuman state of terror and perhaps one of the most vicious tyrannies ever imposed on human kind

One of the darkest chapters in human history was opened up in 1949, when China fell to Communist tyranny. Mao ruined the economy and made life miserable for the Chinese people, committed tens of millions of political murders, set up a police state, an apparatus of state terror all in the name of the evil ideology of Communism. 40 million perished in the famine caused by the Great Leap forward. Mao terrorized the population during the Cultural Revolution. When he died in 1976, the regime realized that Communism was a miserable failure, like it was everywhere else, so they moved to a capitalist economy while maintaining the vicious tyranny of the party police state. Since then, there has been some economic growth enjoyed by Chinese who chose to collaborate with their tyrannical government. Ordinary people and Chinese who dream of basic, inalienable human rights still get slaughtered in mass, like in Tiananmen Square, like the Chinese democracy movement, and like the Tibetans. China is a virtual prison. The Communists run a police state and a state terror apparatus. Anyone who desires freedom can be executed at will by the highly centralized terrorist state. There is no freedom of conscience, no freedom of the press, and the government engages in a campaign of genocide against parents who chose to have more than one child and the Tibetans. JoeM

Sorry, no can do...I'm sure such a contribution would be welcome at http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org --Jiang

Heh, Well maybe the substance of this could be included on Internet-Encyclopedia in a subsidiary article entitled, [[People's Republic of China:Critical views]] The main article, edited correctly from a sympathetic point of view, should be about the valiant and well meaning struggles of the Chinese people and the ruling Party and while being truthful about various setbacks deals fully with the good faith efforts being made to overcome both political and objective difficulties. Fred Bauder 10:29, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I found the following in a New York Times article, "And China won't agree to a huge revaluation because its huge trade surplus with the U.S. is largely offset by trade deficits with other countries" What countries does China run those trade deficits with? Those it is buying raw materials from like Brazil and the oil states? Fred Bauder 10:29, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The PRC is running trade deficits with raw materials nations and also a huge trade deficit with Japan -- Roadrunner 2 Jan 2003

Reworded the intro section a bit. -- Roadrunner 2 Jan 2003

This is just wrong

Lack of electoral campaign, voters usually know nothing about the candidates. In addtion, almost all of the candidates are members of CPC. Together with localism, this kind of election is quite random and symbolistic.

In village elections the campaigns are local people and are generally familiar to the voters and the candidates are generally not party members. The CCP does maintain control over the system, but not this way.

The way that the elections work is that each level appoints delegates to the next higher level, which allows the CCP to control the process. Even if you have an anti-CCP person at a low level, he is not going to be able to control the appointments to the next higher level.

Also, I don't think that the elections are "random and symbolistic." One thing that it does do is to allow villages to address local grevanaces which actually lessens political discontent.

Roadrunner 2 Jan 2003

It might be nice to have a demographics section mentioning some of the racial minorities (eg, Koreans, Tibetans, Mongolians, whatever). But, of course that requires someone to write it, and I don't volunteer :) Kyk 06:48, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Someone else already did it, but it wasn't linked to the main page. Roadrunner

Ah, "List_of_Chinese_ethnic_groups", very nice! Kyk 07:13, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Good work, Roadrunner. You keep a tight reign over the China-related articles, spotting ethnocentric drivel and ill-informed opinion almost the minute it creeps into the articles. Because of you, Jiang, Oliver, and a handful of others, Wiki is emerging as one of the better online sources on China, save the academic journals. BTW, I did some google and yahoo searches and noticed that Wiki's China-related articles are often on the top 10-15. 172 10:29, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"The People's Republic of China claims sovereignty over but does not administer the islands of Taiwan, Penghu, Quemoy and Matsu. Taiwan's political status is controversial; it is administered by the Republic of China, which is currently recognised by 27 countries around the world."

Isn't this contradictory? MikeCapone march 08, 2004.

No it's not. The Republic of China (founded 1912) is different from the [People's Republic of China] (founded 1949), if that's your concern. --Jia ng 03:10, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I missed the difference in the names. I suggest that someone who knows what he's doing make it a little bit more evident for the neophyte, since I'm sure that there are many people not familiar with the distinction (like me) reading the article. MikeCapone 03:11, march 08, 2004 (UTC).

How's adding "based in Taipei"? Is that enough? --Jia ng

order

how to arrange the interwiki link "한국어"? --Yacht 04:19, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Area of PRC

If I'm not incorrect, then depending on how exactly you count the area, the PRC is sometimes third and sometimes fourth in the world, sometimes behind and sometimes ahead of the United States. The reason is that there are several variables to be resolved in the calculation of area:

the inclusion or exclusion of disputed areas such as Taiwan, Arunachal Pradesh, Aksai Chin, Spratly Islands, etc.
the inclusion or exclusion of special areas such as Hong Kong and Macau for the PRC and Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, etc., for the United States
the inclusion or exclusion of inland bodies of water (the Great Lakes of the United States makes a big difference here)
the inclusion or exclusion of territorial waters

There may also be some other variables that I didn't think of off the top of my head. Anyway, can somehow who is more familiar with the exact numbers and effects of all these variables write an article about it and then link to it from the PRC page so we don't having debates over whether the PRC is third or fourth in land area? --Lowellian 22:40, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

the official claim by the PRC government about the area of PRC is 9,602,716 km², ranked 3rd in the world (I think that includes Taiwan). that's why i was quite surprised to learn that it's the 4th when i first came to wiki. should we make a note there? like, "mainland only"? --Yacht (talk) 09:47, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Oops, i didn't realize there were already a discussion. but how should we name that article? Dispute in the Area of PRC? :p i guess we need only to make a note in this article, and that's enough. what do u think? --Yacht (talk) 09:51, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

NAM

Latest comment: 21 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Jiang, can you just tell me before I revert it, what was the reason for deleting NAM message? China is observer and used to be a member. I think that this is just enough to place it here. Avala 14:42, 15 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

The footer contains too many countries in it? Shall we create a one for the UN too? If you want to indicate that it's a NAM observer, then say so. The footer is meaningless. You may add it, but keep in mind that it's a wasted effort because these will be removed, per consensus on wikiproject countries. --Jia ng 22:35, 15 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Some Wiseguy

Some wiseguy decided to change a bunch of words in the article to ridiculously stupid things. I'm new to this and very poor at editing, so would someone with the skill please fix it?

Welcome to wikipedia. Have a look at Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version. Cheers, Jia ng 06:40, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Economy section NPOVing

I believe the Economy section violates NPOV quite drastically. I assume it has mostly been copied from the CIA World Factbook, which has a strong POV on certain matters. As the most dramatic NPOV violation, the phrase "The result has been a quadrupling of GDP since 1978" seems to be a simple case of post hoc ergo propter hoc, besides being quite vague (has GDP quadrupled in real terms? in US dollars? It's unclear at which point the GDP had quadrupled relative to 1978. There should at least be a hint that the GDP as a measure of the size of an economy is dependent on the economic system.)

Similarly, I believe the description of China's 1978 economy as "sluggish Soviet-style centrally planned economy" is NPOV. Sluggish might be quite accepted as a description of a capitalistic economy in a recession, but I'm not aware of any NPOV meaning when applied to planned economies. Quite honestly, I think the whole economy section seems to demonstrate a clear agenda, and seems to be more about the history of the PRC's economy than about its current state.

In summary, I believe the Economy section needs substantial revision and would profit from rewriting. There seem to be, at most, two sentences in the entire last paragraph that should be included in this article. Quite frankly, who cares about electricity prices in China?

If anyone would like to take a stab at this, I'd be very glad. I'll do it myself, obviously, but I don't think very much of the current text should be kept so I might not be the ideal person.

Prumpf 07:41, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's not so much point of view as outdated and without giving a broad overview, excessively detailed. Please feel free to write a new section. I do like this introduction though, "Beginning in late 1978 the Chinese leadership has been moving the economy from a sluggish Soviet-style centrally planned economy to a more market-oriented economy but still within a rigid political framework of Communist Party control." China escaped the deadly stagnation that afflicted the economy of the Soviet Union and caused its collapse. That is significant. Fred Bauder 14:00, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

It might be significant, but it's not NPOV. State economies are frighteningly complex systems, and what would have happened had China not reformed its economy is speculation, and should be pointed out as such. Put another way, I think your statement is a conclusion that our readers might want to reach, based on the facts that we present them. It's not something we can just tell them while our NPOV hat is on. Prumpf 18:25, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It might take some digging, but the elegant solution is to find examples of the thinking of the Chinese leadership and their take on why they changed their economic policies and how they characterized it then and now. Fred Bauder 23:11, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

I have been in trouble at Wikipedia before for writing articles about the future, US invasion of Iraq, but I think some information which points at the overheated condition of the Chinese economy, the efforts of the government to cool it off and warnings of a sort of crash would be appropriate. Certainly some information about the massive imports of raw materials should be included. Fred Bauder 14:00, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Also material about the uneven state of the Chinese economy. Contrast the modern export oriented industrial sector with the impoverished countryside and the aging and obsolete state-run enterprises. Fred Bauder 15:00, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Some pages disappeared.

The archives linked at Talk:People's Republic of China (except for one) have vanished. Talk: China (Archive 1), Talk: China (Archive 2), Talk: China (Archive 3), Talk: China (Archive 4) turn up red. Where did the text go? --Jia ng 04:50, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

They may still be there, it's just that for some reason they got a leading space in the page title. Not quite sure how to fix this. cur_id of the pages in the database: 215128, 215431, 215831, 229086. -- User:Docu

I think it's possible for someone with shell access to the server to move problem titles like this with a manual SQL command. If somebody does, I guess they should really be at Talk:China/Archive 1 etc. - IMSoP 16:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unacceptable summary of the Maoist era

"While ensuring China's sovereignty, Mao's administration imposed strict controls over everyday life and cost the lives of tens of millions of people through disastrous policies such as the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution."

This is unacceptable as a summary of the entire Maoist era. It makes a dubious and unsupported claim of destructiveness and says nothing about the progress that was made (other than the "ensuring" of "China's sovereignty"). Shorne 16:22, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps something about unifying the country. I don't know what you want, spell it out. Maybe some reference to the Korean War and assertion of control over tibet? Remember the history section is intended to be a summary. Fred Bauder 00:04, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

I added something, and someone promptly deleted it.

I can appreciate that the history section is supposed to be a summary. But if you're going to have only one sentence on Mao, that sentence should say a lot more than "it was disastrous". User Ran gave a few examples below. Shorne 02:01, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Certainly the use of "disastrous" is not a shining example of Wikipedia's NPOV. Fuzheado | Talk 01:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. Shorne 02:01, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not just unity and sovereignty (though those are of course important), but also advances in areas like basic infrastructure (railroads, etc.), improved healthcare and education, the development of industry (Daqing oilfields, etc.), and so on. (Of course, the flipside question is: if Chiang Kai-shek had been given the same opportunity, wouldn't he have done the same? And if there had been no GLF and Cultural Revolution, wouldn't things even be better?) But I frankly don't know enough about this topic to write anything substantial... so can somebody help? -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 01:41, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for some good examples of progress under Mao.

Chiang Kai-shek did have the opportunity—for thirty years. He didn't do anything like what China did under Mao. He didn't even do it in Taiwan, where he resisted land reform until the US forced him to implement it. Hell, he didn't even ensure sovereignty.

Whether things would have been better without the GLF and the Cultural Revolution is a matter of debate. It certainly is not a subject for idle speculation in Wikipedia, let alone in a "summary" that consists of only one sentence. Shorne 02:01, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd say that 20-30 million not-dead people and 10 more years of economic development would certainly have helped in making the entire Maoist period more appealing. ;) -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 02:18, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

To Shorne: uh... you've been in China before, right? Deng Xiaoping's reforms brought a visible and drastic increase in living standards. Peasants (and city folk) were starving in the 70's; by the 80's they certainly had enough to eat; by the 90's peasants were entrepreneuring up and down the Zhejiang coastline and becoming millionaires. Not to mention the middle class that basically didn't exist in the 80's but can enjoy first-world-like living standards today.

Yes, the rich-poor gap sucks, but it's an improvement compared to poorer-poorest equality.

And here's what the CIA factbook says:

In late 1978 the Chinese leadership began moving the economy from a sluggish, inefficient, Soviet-style centrally planned economy to a more market-oriented system. ... The authorities switched to a system of household and village responsibility in agriculture in place of the old collectivization, increased the authority of local officials and plant managers in industry, permitted a wide variety of small-scale enterprises in services and light manufacturing, and opened the economy to increased foreign trade and investment. The result has been a quadrupling of GDP since 1978. Measured on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis, China in 2003 stood as the second-largest economy in the world after the US, although in per capita terms the country is still poor.

Admittedly, most of the poverty-eradication in the countryside happened early (since the rural reforms happened early), and today the rural situation is stagnated or even getting worse. (Judging from the way Beijing is bloating these days, the urban situation is definitely not getting worse.) But it's certainly better still than, say, 1977. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 02:45, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Okay Shorne, let's try this:

[2]

Try reading just the first few pages. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 05:48, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

And try the stats here: [3] -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 05:53, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Bullshit. China had to import grain in the mid-1980s after forcibly breaking up the people's communes. The life expectancy has gone down dramatically, health care and education have been withdrawn in many places, unemployment (which did not exist under Mao) is now common, prostitution and drugs have come back with a vengeance, and immense disparities in wealth have appeared.

For starters, calling UN stats "bullshit" isn't going to earn you any credibility.

That comment was directed at your unfounded conclusions.

Life expectancy has gone down dramatically? The stats that I gave above do not seem to agree with you. As for unemployment — well, yeah, the last time I checked, North Korea had perfect employment, while South Korea didn't. It's just that the employment opportunities in North Korea (and pre-reform China) sucked, that's all.

We're not talking about North Korea. As for life expectancy, it reached 70 by the end of Mao's life (1976). It went down into the 60s again and is only just now beginning to return to the point where it was thirty years ago. (Russia, incidentally, is much worse off. Even the UN has expressed alarm over the rapid decline in the life expectancy of men.)

The stats from the UN seem to say otherwise:

Life expectancy at birth (years), 1970-75 63.2  
Life expectancy at birth (years), 2000-05 71.0  
Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births), 1970 85  
Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births), 2002 31  
Under-five mortality rate (per 1,000 live births), 1970 120  
Under-five mortality rate (per 1,000 live births), 2002 39

As for prostitution, drugs, etc., those are simply the flipside of a society that is increasingly open, liberal, and prosperous. North Korea, for example, does not have prostitution nor drugs. Nor does it have other such decadent things like internet access, private automobiles, freedom to travel for leisure (domestically or abroad), or reliable electricity 24 hours a day. China does. Horrors!

I'm not sure that North Korea doesn't have prostitution and drugs. How do you know?

That is actually a very good question. Perhaps North Korea does have prostitution. But where would they get their drugs?

The benefits of the "reform" are seen primarily in the cities, as you admit. Even there they are definitely not evenly distributed. Some people live at a First World standard while others go without pay for months on end—if they have work at all.

As the cities are populated by hundreds of millions of people, all of whome used to have zero freedom of choice in employment or housing, lived off meager ration tickets distributed by the state (and so on), I hardly consider a greatly improved quality of life in the cities the sort of minor development that you're trying to overlook.

Most of China is rural. Note again that I said that the improved quality of life has helped only a small part of urban residents. It has hurt many others.

That is definitely true. But I would dispute that "small part" statement. In fact according to [4] and [5], China's middle class constitutes 15% of the population. Right now the urban population is about 35-40%. This means that a good minority (just under 50%) of the urban population are now leading lives of a substantially better quality than 20 years ago.

As for the people who go without pay for months — yes, it's the symptoms of a society that doesn't yet know how to handle capitalism. On the other hand, many of those are migrant peasants, the same people who would be starving to death in the countryside under Mao.

Nothing but an excuse.

An excuse for what? Surely you agree that starving to death is not a pleasant prospect?

The "responsibility system" was also a disaster. A few people got rich off it; many lost out entirely. Much of the wealth, too, was an illusion created by accounting: communal property that was sold off looked on the books like a sharp rise in production when it was really just a one-time windfall, the realisation of accumulated labour from years past.

Okay, I'll need someone else to refute this... (You do realize though grain output has increased sharply after rural reforms were implemented?)

Thank you for having the honesty to admit that you can't refute it. See Hinton, The Great Reversal: The privatization of China, 1978–1989. There was an increase for a few years, much of which was due to the selling of old grain (when the collectives were disbanded, in many cases by force) rather than the harvesting of new, much of which was due to the abnormally high prices that the state temporarily offered. The house of cards came tumbling down in 1985, when China had to import immense amounts of grain. By 1987, Dazhai, the most successful commune in the country, did not produce enough grain to feed itself.

By the way, if decollectivisation was such a stunning success, why did the government have to break up many communes by force? Seems to fly in the face of the "free market", no?

The "house of cards" did not exactly come tumbling down in 1985. Grain output was 379.1 million tonnes that year (down from 407.3 the year before); but it continued to rise after that, reaching a peak of 512.3 million tonnes in 1998. (Yes, it's dropped since then, as peasants continue to migrate citywards and the ecological conditions worsen — but perhaps you'd first like to explain how it managed to rise for 20 years before that: due to the selling of 20-year-old grain and 20-year-old abnormally high prices?)

Source: [6]

By the way: Dazhai is such a sad example to use. It's basically a hamlet perched halfway up sandy, desolated hillsides in the middle of the Taihang mountains, glorified in the heyday of communism for propaganda purposes. I've been there — it's basically a souvenir-selling tourist trap today. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 04:24, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Quoting GDP is ridiculous. East Germany had a higher GDP than Taiwan right up until reunification. So what? GDP is an economic category that has very little to do with the welfare of the people. Some Middle Eastern countries have enormous GDPs because of oil exports, but the money stays in the hands of emirs, and illiteracy is as high as 50% (worse still for women).

So? Germany has always been a rich country; Taiwan was until recently very poor. GDP per capita correlates well with welfare, even though it is not always reliable. Of course we have to look at other factors too (life expectancy, etc.) but those are also looking very favorable in China, especially compared to the wreck that China was at the end of the Cultural Revolution.

Taiwan was heavily subsidised by the US. While Taiwan got guaranteed export markets, the rest of China was cut off from trade with the US altogether. One bookstore in the US had to pay money into an account that remained frozen for many years. China kept sending goods even though it couldn't get at the proceeds. Again, a conflict with your "free market" mythology.

Your anti-Taiwan diatribes aside (Taiwan, btw, is one of the four Asian tigers and a pride of all Asians, as far as I'm concerned), what point are you trying to make, exactly?

It stands to reason: if some people are becoming millionaires in China, a lot of others are losing ground. Hell, the article itself mentions wages of fifty US cents per hour. Can't buy too many luxury condos in Beijing or Shanghai on that sort of income. Shorne 06:13, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, it means that productivity has gone up, so that everyone is earning more, although the still-imperfect system has allowed a few people to gather up large proportions of the newly generated wealth. That's better compared to the Maoist period when insanities such as the GLF and the Cultural Revolution created periods of economic stagnation and massive numbers of deaths -- not to mention the intangible costs such as the severe loss of human dignity and freedom, as well as cultural heritage.-- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 17:04, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Everyone is earning more? What nonsense! Poverty and high earnings are pretty damn hard to reconcile. Quote me numbers—if you can—that show a higher quality of life according to a material standard. Not higher GDP, not higher wages that don't take into account the devaluation of the currency and the inflation of prices. (To say nothing of large-scale unemployment and general misery.) Shorne 21:47, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

GDP per capita by purchasing power parity is exactly the thing that you want: it takes prices into account. Or if you're still not satisfied, you can try the Human Development Index figures from the UN website. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 04:24, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Shorne, here's an excerpt from a famous encyclopdia:

In 2003, China's GDP in terms of purchasing power parity reached $6.4 trillion, becoming the second-largest in the world. Using conventional measurements it is ranked 7th. With its large population this still gives an average GNP per person of only an estimated $5,000, about 1/7th that of the United States. The offically reported growth rate for 2003 was 9.1%. It was estimated by the CIA that in 2002 agriculture accounted for 14.5% of China's GNP, industry and construction for 51.7% and services for 33.8%. Average rural income is about one third that of urban areas, a gap which has widened in recent decades.

These figures do take account of prices and the value of the currency. Fred Bauder 22:28, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the figures. While they do not indicate personal income or prices and do not say anything about years before 2000 or so, I think they nicely illustrate my point about the supposed wealth of the Chinese people. Even if the entire GNP were distributed as income, the average would be only $5k per person. Hardly the treasures of Araby, is it? Of course, nothing like the entire GNP is distributed as income. The World Bank claims that the average per-capita income in China for 2004 is US$960. Not drastically more than the few hundred per year of the 1970s. Indeed, the time value of money means that it is less, especially when formerly free services such as health care are taken into account. Shorne 00:43, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The $960 figure is conversion by exchange rate, the $5000 is conversion by purchasing power parity. The second one reflects living standards by taking into account prices and other costs of basic necessities; the first one does not.

What are you talking about? The $5000 was GNP. Nothing to do with income. The $960 is income. Shorne 04:08, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You might want to give a more exact value to that "few hundred dollars of the 1970's" and show us exactly how much higher it is than $5000. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 03:47, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

I'll be glad to look up statistics, although I think I've already proven my case adequately. Again, $5000 is GNP, not income. Shorne 04:08, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Uh, do you even know what you're talking about???

GNP (or the closely related GDP) refer to the total output of a nation: it's measured in billions and trillions. For example, China has a GDP of 1+ trillion US dollars by exchange rates, and 5+ trillion US dollars by purchasing power parity. (GNP figures would be very close to those.) The former converts Renminbi into US dollars by the rate at which you can change them, cash for cash; the latter compares by prices, for example, how many Renminbi worth of stuff you can buy with 1 US dollar.

We're talking about per-capita values here. Divide by the population. Shorne 04:48, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since it's impossible basically to measure income directly, average income is usually inferred by taking the total GDP (or GNP) and dividing it by the population. The result is called GDP per capita. This obviously glosses over income disparities, but then, that's what the word average in "average income" means. If we take the above figures and divide by 1.3 billion, we get about $5000 by purchasing power parity, and about $1000 by exchange rates. Clearly, if you want to talk about living standards, then purchasing power is obviously a better indicator to use; it's used by the UN, for example, to calculate the Human Development Index.

No. Per-capita GNP and per-capita income are different things. Again, Fred's quote gave $5000 per year as the per-capita GNP (I think it's closer to $4000, but never mind), and my data (from the World Bank) gave $960 as the per-capita income. Big difference. Shorne 04:48, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As such, you yourself have admitted that while GDP per capita (i.e. average income) was "a few hundred" 20 years ago, it is $5000 today. (Thank you for providing the statistic yourself.) What else do you have to say? -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 04:35, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense. I admitted that per-capita income was a few hundred dollars in the 1970s and is, still today, a few hundred dollars, namely $960. Please pay attention, or I will abandon this discussion. Shorne 04:48, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay, read this: Gross domestic product

And pay especial attention to these: Gross domestic product#List of total GDP by country (Purchasing Power Parity Method) and Gross domestic product#List of total GDP by country (Current Exchange Rate Method)

I'll even do the math for you. Total GDP by PPP was 5.70 trillion US dollars; divided by 1.3 billion gives $4400. Total GDP by exchange rates was 1.41 trillion US dollars; divided by 1.3 billion gives $1100.

The world bank figure of $960 refers to a version of the latter figure, i.e. GDP per capita by exchange rates. Check the World Bank China pageyourself. Do you see what is going on? -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 04:54, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

I know perfectly well what is going on, thank you very much. I'm still waiting for you to tell me how even $4400 per year with very unequal distribution translates into no poverty.

For your information, China ranked 123d out of 206 entities (most of them sovereign countries) in 1998 according to GDP by PPP, so says the UN. I have the data right in front of me. Too bad that I happen not to have the data for 1975 as well. Shorne 05:24, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Stop trying to dodge the argument. This argument was about your assertion that standard of living has not risen. You were trying to prove this by saying that "income is still $960", just like the seventies. I've shown that it is in fact $4000 - 5000, which you yourself have conceded to in the most recent post above. As such your point that "standard of living has not risen" is now moot.

What are you talking about? I didn't say that income was $960 in the seventies. You're inventing things.

I don't mind looking up old data from the seventies. As it happens, I don't have them to hand right this instant.

I quote: The World Bank claims that the average per-capita income in China for 2004 is US$960. Not drastically more than the few hundred per year of the 1970s. Your argument was unfortunately based on the assertion that "per-capita income", which is magically the same as GDP per capita by exchange rate (as given by the World Bank) but not by PPP, is $960.

We were talking about different statistics. Anyway, I don't deny that GDP is up somewhat. Which country wouldn't have a higher GDP after thirty years? I do deny that real income is up by the large multiples that have been tossed about on this page, and I deny that it has been an across-the-board increase. Millions of people are decidedly worse off, as I've already said. Unfortunately, Westerners tend to see shops in Shanghai that sell luxury goods and extrapolate to the entire country. It just isn't so. Shorne 07:06, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You certainly have not shown that income is $4–5k. That's per-capita GDP by PPP. The entire country's production does not get distributed as income. Some $18 billion per year goes to service on the debt alone. (China had no debt in Mao's day.) It is a crude distortion to call that "income". I agree that it's useful for evaluating standards of living, but it isn't income. Shorne 05:53, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And yet, you were the one parading GDP per capita (by exchange rates, no less) in front of me and calling it "per capita income"!

Going around in circles with you is becoming tiresome. We've been over this bit of confusion before. Shorne 07:06, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The ranking of China among the world's nations is irrelevant to this discussion. Nor have I or anyone else tried to claim that China has no rich-poor gap or abject poverty. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 05:31, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

But you did say that Deng's "reforms" had eliminated abject poverty. Shorne 05:53, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I did? You must be imagining things. The precise wording was the "eradication of poverty". This does not mean the complete removal of poverty, but the lifting up of parts of the population from it. Plenty of NGO's claim to "eradicate poverty" every day, and yet there still seems to be poverty all over the world. Are all of those NGO's lying then? -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 06:11, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

You need to state what you mean by "poverty" before we can even discuss this. I still wish to know where the masses of starving people were whom Deng supposedly rescued. Shorne 07:06, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As for NGOs, yes, I think most of them are full of crap when they talk about "eradicating poverty". Most of them are in the business of perpetuating poverty. White-faced people make entire careers—well-paying ones, too—out of ongoing starvation in the Third World. But that's a separate discussion. Shorne 07:06, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Does this cut any ice with you?

"The example that comes most readily to mind is China. At the core of Mao’s economic policies was not simply the acceleration of the pace of development, but rather leaping over whole stages. Unfortunately, China pursued that policy at a very dear price. There’s a lot of controversy now about the current economic policies of the Communist Party of China. Many people are critical, but in my short stay there (I visited about a year and a half ago), it was apparent that the opening up of the country and the employment of market mechanisms has led to the acceleration of growth. Some say there is greater inequality, and that’s true, but at the same time they are lifting tens of millions out of poverty." Interview with Sam Webb Fred Bauder 01:38, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. It's POV. Big deal that someone went to China and feels qualified to make broad diachronic statements about the economy. I gave you numbers above that make my point. Shorne 02:06, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The "someone" is an actual expert on communism. Your numbers make no such point, showing a per capita income of $900 when it represents a tripling of income shows a broad rise in income. Fred Bauder 02:27, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

I have addressed that point. There is no "tripling". Shorne 02:58, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You might also look at this: Our Way: Building Socialism with Chinese Characteristics Fred Bauder 01:49, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

History section

To go back to events which might be mentioned in the history section as it relates to the Mao era. In addition to the Korean War and assertion of control over Tibet and other border areas, we might include land reform, perhaps some have read Fanshen by William Hinton. Another event which is assumed but not mentioned is expropriation of capitalist enterprises and other urban private property. At first Soviet advisors and Soviet aid was part of the scene; its withdrawal after the break with Khrushchev was a major event, as were the border disputes (and war) with Russia and India. Population and birth restrictions might also deserve a mention. Fred Bauder 12:27, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Language removed by Shorne

Shorne has removed several times the bolded language in the following sentence: Since then, the government has gradually and greatly loosened governmental control over people's personal lives, and engaged in reforms to transform its planned economy into a market-based one; the result was elimination of the threat of famine, easing of poverty in the countryside and rapid development of the consumer and export sectors of the economy.

The language was added only after I insisted that the Maoist era be more fairly represented. Shorne 03:04, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::Yes, and...? Fred Bauder 12:34, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

… and it is recent propaganda added to restore the article's right-wing bias. Shorne 16:27, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Granted that the languge on my part is based on general knowledge but where is your evidence that famine remains the constant threat it was in pre-revolutionary and Maoist China? And where is your evidence that there was no easing of poverty in rural areas? Fred Bauder 02:37, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Where is your evidence that "famine" was a "constant threat" throughout the Maoist era? There were problems at first, yes, when the country had just emerged from two wars and the wretched Republican period. They were largely eliminated by the time Mao died. Shorne 03:04, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you removed that information from the article. Famine is no longer a threat. A summary is not the place to give details, but my impression was that a return to individual farming instituted by Deng resulted in substantially more food production. Fred Bauder 12:34, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Famine was indeed no longer a threat at the time, thanks to Mao. It is wrong to give Deng the credit. This is what I have been saying. As for your "impression", I don't think it belongs in an article on Wikipedia. Shorne 16:27, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The second item Shorne removes is the bolded text in this sentence: In the major cities, especially in the coastal regions of southeast China where new industrial development is concentrated, a new prosperous middle class has emerged and there was a general rise in standard of living.

Again this language is based on general knowledge, but where is your evidence that there was no general rise in standard of living? Fred Bauder 02:37, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

General knowledge? Fifty million Frenchmen can be wrong.

The people making the claim should be required to defend it. It is improper to call upon other people to disprove one's own assertions. In any case, I have given you statistical evidence that there was no general rise in the standard of living. I accept that a relatively rich middle class and a super-rich upper class arose. I don't buy the claim that everyone is vastly better off. Many, many millions of people are worse off and will tell you so. Shorne 03:04, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't doubt that millions of Chinese are worse off, expecially in the Chinese rust belt in the northeast. You have not given any "statistical evidence that there was no general rise in the standard of living." If so could you point it out? Fred Bauder 12:34, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Again, it is not my job to find evidence to refute other people's statements; it is their job to back them up. Nonetheless, I can and will supply such evidence when I get the time (which won't be soon; I'm too busy trying to create balanced silk purses out of the right-wing sow's ears published at Wikipedia, to say nothing of my other activities). The removal of free health care alone was a disaster for more than half of the population. I've seen medical bills for short hospitalisations—no surgery, just medical treatment of a disease—that far exceeded the average income of a peasant. Shorne 16:27, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Let's look at this partially new entry:

"After the death of Mao, Deng Xiaoping succeeded to power and mainland China remained under Communist rule. Since then, the government has gradually and greatly loosened governmental control over people's personal lives, and engaged in reforms to transform its planned economy into a market-based one; the result was elimination of the threat of famine, easing of poverty in the countryside and rapid development of the consumer and export sectors of the economy."

The beginning is misleading, Deng Xiaoping did not succeed Mao, the so-called Gang of Four did, and even after they were ousted, Deng Xiaoping was not CMC chairman, Hua Guofeng was. Then the part of elimination of the threat of famine. That's pretty encompassing language, I would not say the threat of famine has been *eliminated* in China any more than the it has been in the US or anywhere. The US census says millions of Americans have skipped meals due to hardship, one wonders what a bad harvest and economy would do to that existing situation. Anyhow, besides that encompassing language, this is all attributed to Deng, who did not come to power until two decades after the Three Years of Natural Disaster. Why does he get all the credit for this and not Mao, the Gang of Four and/or Huo Guofeng? Who knows. Ruy Lopez 12:08, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. Mao solved the basic problems and got slandered for "killing tens of millions". Deng rode in on Mao's coattails (after arranging a coup against the Gang of Four and pushing Hua aside) and got credit for all the progress, to which his "reforms" added precious little. Hunger has returned to China, though you wouldn't know it from the reports of Westerners who spend all their time looking in the windows of Western shops in Shanghai and singing pæans to the new "prosperity". Shorne 16:27, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Economic reforms by Deng and others began in 1961 when Mao was still in power, see [7]. Fred Bauder 12:59, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Pardon? Mao correctly fingered Deng for a capitalist and twice removed from power. Deng's attempted "reforms" were strongly denounced in the 1960s. Shorne 16:27, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A bad harvest in the United States is one that produces too much food with subsequent problems that flow from over-production. Fred Bauder 12:53, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

The gang of four is not mentioned in our summary, perhaps they should be. Briefly summarizing that episode might prove difficult however. Fred Bauder 12:30, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the article I cited above [8]:

The Engel Index (ratio of expenditure on food in total expenditure on consumption goods), which reflects changes in residents’ consumption structure, has plunged below 50 percent in 1994 (for urban residents) and in 2000 (for rural residents).

Those statistics are derived from averages, and allow that some people may be worse off, but I would call it evidence of a general rise in living standards. Fred Bauder 12:30, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Here's an interesting site: [9], [10], [11]. [12] Fred Bauder 12:51, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Deng on Mao [13] Fred Bauder 13:13, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Dispute

User Boraczek keeps reverting an indication of a major dispute, despite a clear indication on that page that it is not to be reverted and numerous clear requests from me to see the talk page. Shorne 01:04, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I saw the discussion page, I realized that Fred had shown that the questioned sentence was justified and that your deletion was not justified, so I restored the previous version. Please show respect for other Wikipedians. If you delete text written by other Wikipedians, you should prove that it is wrong. You haven't done it so far. If you do, I won't object to changing the article the way you want. Boraczek 04:12, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Will you please stop being so tedious? The text itself was not documented. I've asked for documentation several times; none has been provided. The text cannot stay. End of argument. Shorne 04:47, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems with this. You are editing an article when you are not familiar with the subject matter. This is evident in your quarrel with the proposition that living standards have improved due to economic reforms. It is not acceptable to edit an article in a area you either choose not to or are unable to master the basic facts involved in its subject matter. Here is another reference for you, from a Chinese source [14]. Again, notice that the Engel index is mentioned. The Engel index which is mentioned about is a measure of what portion of a person's income goes for food. Here is a quote from the article:

"The consumption structure changed remarkably with reduced money on basic daily necessities and increased spending on housing, communication, medical insurance, education and entertainment.

The Engel Index in China's urban areas went down from 49.9 percent in 1995 to 41.9 percent in 1999. While the Index in rural areas decreased from 58.6 percent to 52.6 percent.

The index, representing the ratio of expenditure on food against the whole expenditure reflects the changes of people's consumption patterns. Experts here predict the urban and rural Engel index will continue to drop respectively to 40 percent and 50 percent by the end of the year."

The same problem exist with respect to famine. That the threat of famine was constant in the old China, then revived with the economic and social experimentation of Mao during the Great Leap Forward is general knowledge, and not just with China specialists. Here's a paragraph from our own article on the GLF:

The Great Leap Forward is now widely seen both within China and outside as a major economic disaster. As inflated statistics reached planning authorities, orders were given to divert human resources into industry rather than agriculture. Estimates of deaths range from 4 million to 40 million people, with much of the uncertainty coming from defining what constitutes a death due to famine; it is widely believed to have been the greatest famine in history.

Yet you're asking from "proof" and claiming you havn't gotten it. Fred Bauder 19:42, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

You have absolutely no grounds on which to accuse me of not knowing anything about China. Rather than presenting my credentials, I'll point your nose to a few facts:

No one gave a single reference to prove the propagandistic claims made about income and famine in China. I asked several times over a period of days. I was entirely justified in deleting those unfounded statements. (DItto for that stuff about the Great Purge.)
Your newly cited "references" don't prove a thing about the period discussed, which is roughly 1976 to the present.
I have already cited references about declining food production and other problems that resulted.
The article on the Great Leap Forward is slanted and will be corrected when I get the time. Shorne 23:23, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[15]

Human development index, 1975 0.523  
Human development index, 1980 0.557  
Human development index, 1985 0.593  
Human development index, 1990 0.627  
Human development index, 1995 0.683  
Human development index, 2000 0.721  
Human development index, 2002 0.745

Urban population (% of total), 1975 17.4  
Urban population (% of total), 2002 37.7

Population with sustainable access to improved sanitation (%), 1990 29
Population with sustainable access to improved sanitation (%), 2000 40  
Population with sustainable access to an improved water source (%), 1990 71  
Population with sustainable access to an improved water source (%), 2000 75  
Undernourished people (% of total population), 1990/92 17  
Undernourished people (% of total population), 1999/2001 11

Life expectancy at birth (years), 1970-75 63.2  
Life expectancy at birth (years), 2000-05 71.0  
Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births), 1970 85  
Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births), 2002 31  
Under-five mortality rate (per 1,000 live births), 1970 120  
Under-five mortality rate (per 1,000 live births), 2002 39

Adult literacy rate (% ages 15 and above), 1990 78.3  
Adult literacy rate (% ages 15 and above), 2002 90.9
Youth literacy rate (% ages 15-24), 1990 95.3  
Youth literacy rate (% ages 15-24), 2002 98.9 6  
Net primary enrolment ratio (%), 1990/91 97  
Net primary enrolment ratio (%), 2001/02 93
Children reaching grade 5 (%), 1990/91 86  
Children reaching grade 5 (%), 2000/01 99

Telephone mainlines (per 1,000 people), 1990 6  
Telephone mainlines (per 1,000 people), 2002 167  
Cellular subscribers (per 1,000 people), 1990 (.)  
Cellular subscribers (per 1,000 people), 2002 161  
Internet users (per 1,000 people), 1990 0  
Internet users (per 1,000 people), 2002 46.0  
 
GDP (US$ billions), 2002 1,266.1  
GDP (PPP US$ billions), 2002 5,860.9

(be sure to know the difference between these two, Shorne)

GDP per capita (US$), 2002 989  
GDP per capita (PPP US$), 2002 4,580  
GDP per capita annual growth rate (%), 1975-2002 8.2  
GDP per capita annual growth rate (%), 1990-2002 8.6  
GDP per capita, highest value (PPP US$), 1975-2002 4,580  
GDP per capita, year of highest value 2002

Imports of goods and services (% of GDP), 1990 14  
Imports of goods and services (% of GDP), 2002 26  
Exports of goods and services (% of GDP), 1990 18  
Exports of goods and services (% of GDP), 2002 29  
Primary exports (% of merchandise exports), 1990 27  
Primary exports (% of merchandise exports), 2002 10  
Manufactured exports (% of merchandise exports), 1990 72  
Manufactured exports (% of merchandise exports), 2002 90

Public expenditure on education (% of GDP), 1990 2.3  
Public expenditure on education (% of GDP), 1999-2001 ..  
Public expenditure on health (% of GDP), 1990 2.2  
Public expenditure on health (% of GDP), 2001 2.0  
Military expenditure (% of GDP), 1990 2.7  
Military expenditure (% of GDP), 2002 2.5  
Total debt service (% of GDP), 1990 2.0  
Total debt service (% of GDP), 2002 2.4  
 
Electricity consumption per capita (kilowatt-hours), 1980 307  
Electricity consumption per capita (kilowatt-hours), 2001 1,139

[16]

Income  1957  1978  1981  1982  1983  1984  1985  1986  
Staff & Workers (a)  235  316  458  495  526  608  686  828  
Peasants (b)  73  134  223  270  310  335  398  424  
Ratio % a/b  31%  41%  49%  51%  59%  58%  58%  51%

1952  1978  1982  1983  Increase % 
1983 to 1952  
Calories  2,270.0  2,311.0  2,779.0  2,877.4  26.76%  
-- Animal  111.0  142.0  214.7  225.9  103.51%  
-- Vegetable  2,159.0  2,169.0  2,564.3  2,651.5  22.81%  
Cities  -  2,715.0  3,087.9  3,182.5  -  
Countryside  -  2,224.0  2,707.2  2,805.9  -  
Protein (gram)  69.6  70.8  80.5  82.8  18.97%  
-- Animal  3.1  4.0  5.7  6.2  100.1%  
-- Vegetable  66.5  66.8  74.8  76.6  15.19%  
-- Cities  -  81.6  85.6  87.5  -  
-- Countryside  -  68.5  79.3  81.7  -

[17]

Under-5 mortality rate
1960
  225

2002
  39

Infant mortality rate (under 1)
1960
  150

2002
  31
Adult literacy 
rate

1990 male
  87

1990 female
  69

2000 male
  92

2000 female
  78

GNI per capita (US$) 2002 
 
  940

GDP per capita average annual growth rate (%)
1960-90

  5.5

1990-2002 
  8.6
Under-5 mortality rate

1960
  225

1990
  49

2002
  39

Average annual rate of reduction (%)
1960-90

  5.1

1990-2002

  1.9

Reduction since 1990 (%)

  20

GDP per capita average annual growth rate (%)
1960-90

  5.5

2002
  8.6

Total fertility rate
1960

  1.8

Average annual rate of reduction (%)
1960-90
  3.2

2002
  1.7

There are good things and bad things in there. Go ahead and pick out the ones you like and close your eyes to the rest. Enjoy. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 00:07, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and you were asking if there really was a famine in China in the 1960s. That is something even Mao didn't deny — after all, it takes true Holocaust-denier ability to explain away millions of deaths.

I could be hunting all over books for numbers, but fortunately someone has done it for me.

[18]

Agence France Press (25 Sept. 1999) citing at length from Courtois, Stephane, Le Livre Noir du Communism:
Rural purges, 1946-49: 2-5M deaths
Urban purges, 1950-57: 1M
Great Leap Forward: 20-43M
Cultural Revolution: 2-7M
Labor Camps: 20M
Tibet: 0.6-1.2M
TOTAL: 44.5 to 72M
Jasper Becker, Hungry Ghosts : Mao's Secret Famine (1996)
Estimates of the death toll from the Great Leap Forward, 1959-61:
Judith Banister, China's Changing Population (1984): 30M excess deaths (acc2 Becker: "the most reliable estimate we have")
Wang Weizhi, Contemporary Chinese Population (1988): 19.5M deaths
Jin Hui (1993): 40M population loss due to "abnormal deaths and reduced births"
Chen Yizi of the System Reform Inst.: 43-46M deaths
Brzezinski:
Forcible collectivization: 27 million peasants
Cultural Revolution: 1-2 million
TOTAL: 29 million deaths under Mao
Daniel Chirot:
Land reform, 1949-56
According to Zhou Enlai: 830,000
According to Mao Zedong: 2-3M
Great Leap Forward: 20-40 million deaths.
Cultural Revolution: 1-20 million
Dictionary of 20C World History: around a half million died in Cultural Rev.
Eckhardt:
Govt executes landlords (1950-51): 1,000,000
Cultural Revolution (1967-68): 50,000
Gilbert:
1958-61 Famine: 30 million deaths.
Kurt Glaser and Stephan Possony, Victims of Politics (1979):
They estimate the body count under Mao to be 38,000,000 to 67,000,000.
Cited by G & P:
Walker Report (see below): 44.3M to 63.8M deaths.
The Government Information Office of Taiwan (18 Sept. 1970): 37M deaths in the PRC.
A Radio Moscow report (7 Apr. 1969): 26.4M people had been exterminated in China.
(NOTE: Obviously the Soviets and Taiwanese would, as enemies, be strongly motivated to exaggerate.)
Guinness Book of World Records:
Although nowadays they don't come right out and declare Mao to be the Top Dog in the Mass Killings category, earlier editions (such as 1978) did, and they cited sources which are similar, but not identical, to the Glaser & Possony sources:
On 7 Apr. 1969 the Soviet government radio reported that 26,300,000 people were killed in China, 1949-65.
In April 1971 the cabinet of the government of Taiwan reported 39,940,000 deaths for the years 1949-69.
The Walker Report (see below): between 32,2500,000 and 61,700,000.
Harff and Gurr:
KMT cadre, rich peasants, landlords (1950-51): 800,000-3,000,000
Cultural Revolution (1966-75): 400,000-850,000
John Heidenrich, How to Prevent Genocide: A Guide for Policymakers, Scholars, and the Concerned Citizen: 27M death toll, incl. 2M in Cultural Revolution
Paul Johnson doesn't give an overall total, but he gives estimates for the principle individual mass dyings of the Mao years:
Land reform, first years of PRC: at least 2 million people perished.
Great Leap Forward: "how many millions died ... is a matter of conjecture."

Cultural Revolution: 400,000, calling the 3 Feb. 1979 estimate by Agence France Presse, "The most widely respected figure".

Meisner, Maurice, Mao's China and After (1986), doesn't give an overall total either, but he does give estimates for the three principle mass dyings of the Mao years: 
 Terror against the counterrevolutionaries: 2 million people executed during the first three years of the PRC. 
 Great Leap Forward: 10-20 million famine-related deaths. 
 Cultural Revolution: 400,000, citing a 1979 estimate by Agence France Presse.
R. J. Rummel: 
 Estimate: 
  Democide: 34,361,000 (1949-75) 
   The principle episodes being... 
    All movements (1949-58): 11,813,000 
     incl. Land Reform (1949-53): 4,500,000 
    Cult. Rev. (1964-75): 1,613,000 
    Forced Labor (1949-75): 15,000,000 
    Great Leap Forward (1959-63): 5,680,000 democides
    War: 3,399,000 
    Famine: 34,500,000 
     Great Leap Forward: 27M famine deaths
    TOTAL: 72,260,000
  Cited in Rummel: 
   Li, Cheng-Chung (Republic of China, 1979): 78.86M direct/indirect deaths. 
   World Anti-Communist League, True Facts of Maoist Tyranny (1971): 64.5M 
   Glaser & Possony: 38 to 67M (see above) 
   Walker Report, 1971 (see below): 31.75M to 58.5M casualties of Communism (excluding Korean War). 
   Current Death Toll of International Communism (1979): 39.9M 
   Stephen R. Shalom (1984), Center for Asian Studies, Deaths in China Due To Communism: 3M to 4M death toll, excluding famine.
Walker, Robert L., The Human Cost of Communism in China (1971, report to the US Senate Committee of the Judiciary) "Casualties to Communism" (deaths): 
 1st Civil War (1927-36): .25-.5M 
 Fighting during Sino-Japanese War (1937-45): 50,000 
 2nd Civil War (1945-49): 1.25M 
 Land Reform prior to Liberation: 0.5-1.0M 
 Political liquidation campaigns: 15-30M 
 Korean War: 0.5-1.234M 
 Great Leap Forward: 1-2M 
 Struggle with minorities: 0.5-1.0M 
 Cultural Revolution: .25-.5M 
 Deaths in labor camps: 15-25M 
 TOTAL: 34.3M to 63.784M 
 TOTAL FOR PRC: 32M to 59.5M
July 17, 1994, Washington Post (Great Leap Forward 1959-61) 
 Shanghai University journal, Society: > 40 million 
 Cong Jin: 40 million 
 Chen Yizi: 43 million in the famine. 80 million total as a result of Mao's policies.
Weekly Standard, 29 Sept. 1997, "The Laogai Archipelago" by D. Aikman: 
Between 1949 and 1997, 50M prisoners passed through the labor camps, and 15,000,000 died (citing Harry Wu)
WHPSI: 1,633,319 political executions and 25,961 deaths from political violence, 1948-77. TOTAL: 1,659,280

You know, for someone believing in a philosophy of "to each according to what they need", you seem to be pretty happy screwing other countries over and then denying that it ever happened. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 00:22, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to see proof of the famine conditions that supposedly prevailed in 1976, and proof that Deng eliminated them. Your heap of citations says nothing about this. Shorne 00:37, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As such, let me summarize:

It is clear that various people have pointed out evidence of an increase in average living standards, from a variety of indicators, to Shorne.
1. However, Shorne seems to be fixated on the fact that some people lost out. Duh. In any reform people lose out. All we're trying to say is that the average level went up. Which, as we have shown again and again, did indeed go up.
2. In addition, Shorne betrayed an absolute lack of understanding in the measuring of living standards when he revealed himself to be ignorant of the difference between PPP and exchange rates.
3. Shorne is also fixated on one dip in the grain output of China in 1986 and takes that as evidence that China's grain output as fallen, despite common knowledge (yes, I've given you a source too) that grain output has consistently risen right through the 1990's.
4. Finally, Shorne has outdone Holocaust deniers by several multiples, by trying to deny the deaths of tens of millions of people. Here's a hint: Mao did not do that.
As such, I believe that Shorne is attempting to twist facts in order to serve his own political agenda, which is belief in a philosophy that is today fringe at best and practiced today in only one East Asian country that's perpetually stuck in famine and misery. And here's an interesting statistic: so far 10 external links have been provided by Fred Bauder, 9 by me, and 0 by Shorne.

I guess we can call this an appeal for Wikipedia:RfC. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 00:32, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Have your RfC if you want it. I'm glad to defend myself. Every one of your claims about me is wrong, and I am perfectly capable of proving it. Shorne 00:37, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 00:45, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Mediation requested

User VeryVerily's intransigence and impossible behaviour have left me no option but to request mediation. People who have anything to add to my request are asked to visit Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Shorne 11:01, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)