The trouble with this argument is that some people in it spent their time discussing the political system of China. That wasn't the issue. What was being discussed was the governmental classification, which is something totally different entirely. The term 'Communist state' is a political science term used to describe a system of government in a one-party left wing state (in which the one party describes itself as communist) in which the state and party become embedded in each other and operate as one.
Whether China is communist, socialist, post-communist or whatever is not the point. That is relevant in a discussion of a political system in the section on political system. But in terms of governmental structure, 'Communist state' is the formal designation normally used by sourcebooks and encyclopædias. (It is one of those terms like 'constitutional monarchy', 'federal state' etc that is used in encyclopædias to categorising a state's governmental system) To try to clear up the confusion, a link was put from that term to an article that explained EXACTLY what that term means and what it does not mean. (Though Fred Bauder keeps POVing the link with stuff that is so right wing that even Donald Rumsfeld would blush. And in doing so he removes work from a number of other people that is intended to and largely succeeds in, making it NPOV. His POVing of the piece constantly has to be reverted.)
What type of political system China has can and should be debated. But no other formal categorisation of the 'system of government' comes close to describing a governmental system where in a one party state with a self-proclaimed communist party, party offices in practice can be more powerful than the formal state constitutional offices. (The General Secretary of the USSR Communist Party was a classic example. Many GSs weren't initially a holder of state office like president, but still such was the party-state link that they were more central and more in control than the supposed president or prime minister, a situation that does not exist in modern liberal democracies.) THAT is what the debate was about, not whether 'politically' the party was communist, post-communist, neo-communist, socialist, neo-socialist, neo capitalist, etc which is a 'different' argument that belongs in a different section of the article.
JT
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China? Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 04:51:11 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from www.wikipedia.org ([130.94.122.197]) by mc10-f31.bay6.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Fri, 25 Apr 2003 04:53:10 -0700 Received: from www.wikipedia.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])by www.wikipedia.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3PBj7o30262;Fri, 25 Apr 2003 11:45:07 GMT Received: from joey.bomis.com (root@joey.bomis.com [130.94.122.196])by www.wikipedia.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3PBiPo30203for wikien-l@wikipedia.org; Fri, 25 Apr 2003 11:44:25 GMT Received: from joey.bomis.com (jwales@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])by joey.bomis.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h3PBpBq6026858for wikien-l@wikipedia.org; Fri, 25 Apr 2003 04:51:11 -0700 Received: (from jwales@localhost)by joey.bomis.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h3PBpBET026857for wikien-l@wikipedia.org; Fri, 25 Apr 2003 04:51:11 -0700 X-Message-Info: UZmYcfFpTCewzfqvyl1d15R59mlxBfYY Message-ID: 20030425045111.F26205@joey.bomis.com References: 20030425045151.28535.qmail@web14008.mail.yahoo.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: 20030425045151.28535.qmail@web14008.mail.yahoo.com; from axelboldt@yahoo.com on Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 09:51:51PM -0700 Sender: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org Errors-To: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org X-BeenThere: wikien-l@wikipedia.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: mailto:wikien-l-request@wikipedia.org?subject=help List-Post: mailto:wikien-l@wikipedia.org List-Subscribe: http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l,mailto:wikien-l-request@wikipedia.org?subject=subscribe List-Id: Discussion list for English-language Wikipedia <wikien-l.wikipedia.org> List-Unsubscribe: http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l,mailto:wikien-l-request@wikipedia.org?subject=unsubscribe List-Archive: http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/ Return-Path: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Apr 2003 11:53:10.0452 (UTC) FILETIME=[3E5B8F40:01C30B21]
Regarding the policy issue, I wonder if our "standard techniques" for dealing with a controversy are perfectly adequate to deal with the issue. Ironically, the effort to clarify the issue for the mailing list may point the way to resolving the question on the page.
How about this:
China has been traditionally considered a communist state, although the Chinese Constitution states that China is a socialist state. Western scholars are moving away from the label "communist" and calling China "socialist", "[[late socialist]]", or "[[post socialist]]".
I'm not saying that this is a really *good* formulation; I'm sure it could be refined quite easily. But it eliminates a controversy by stating the controversy. All parties can agree to it.
--Jimbo
p.s. Regarding the content issue, it is my understanding that China is nowadays a confused and somewhat internally contradictory place. Shanghai in particular is often cited as being relatively capitalist, even! I don't really know anything about that other than what I read in the newspapers and magazines, though.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail