The New York Times has gotten hold of a secret Chinese Communist Party memo, which lists seven subversive currents in Chinese society, which could lead to the overthrow of the party after the fashion of the French Revolution. The New York Times, however fails to list all seven subversive currents, merely giving us their interpretation of selected parts of the document.
Therefore, spin, therefore a lie. If they did not intend to mislead you, would give you the full seven.
Not a word. They lie and exaggerate everything they claim.
I wonder what the actual wording was, so I checked the NYT Chinese version (yeah, they have one).
http://cn.nytimes.com/china/20130820/c20document/
Then I googled “7 subversive undercurrents”
And I got this:
http://www.google.com/?gws_rd=cr#fp=85e87a878ab23426&q=%E4%B8%83%E5%A4%A7+%E9%A2%A0%E8%A6%86%E6%80%A7%E6%BD%9C%E6%B5%81
basically they all link to the NYT. So yeah they made it up.
Something funny: The English article is titled: China Takes Aim at Western Ideas.
The Chinese version is titled: Central government secret document sees constitutionalism and human rights as threats.
If I were the CCP I’d want to have a long talk with the translator.
She can’t get enough play….Central Banking demands collectivism.
http://pundita.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-guardians-of-economy-make-their.html
Since Mao, the top PRC leadership has been a double-act, with a trend to becoming more balanced, so everyone who is getting flustered about Xi Jinping’s statements needs to twin them with Li Keqiang’s in order to get even an elementary picture. There are three immediate points that are getting missed:
(a) The ‘Li’ half of ‘Xi-Li’ is all about deepening market reforms (at least publicly, and public statements are the topic here)
(b) ‘Maoism’ today is about internal Party organization, Abrahamic-moral soft-soaping of social tensions, and the sucking out of any potential oxygen source to the Left. (Think ‘Christianity’ for Germany’s CDU/CSU.)
(c) The profound trend is towards re-Confucianization of government authority, compared to which Marxist theater is a minor distraction. Does anyone seriously think the CCP wants to return to revolutionary class struggle? The idea is patently absurd.
Confucianism says that those who rule are entitled to go on ruling provided they do not screw up disastrously. The Party is doing alright, so Confucianism says that they are entitled to rule. The party cannot plausibly claim to be the organized voice of the proletariat, so Marxism says that they are not entitled to rule.
Solution: Redefine Marxism with Chinese Characteristics as Marxism in which all Marxist holy books are disturbingly subversive, and apt to be dangerous for one’s career, and even one’s health, but Confucianism is good for one’s career.
“those who rule are entitled to go on ruling provided they do not screw up disastrously.”
Isn’t that how it’s always been?
Tocqueville’s theory of revolution predicts the opposite (as does Marxism). Pop Tocqueville — development builds a middle class which then imposes liberal democracy — is so widely believed it amounts almost to conventional wisdom. The traditional Tianming theory Jim refers to is a minority view in comparison (but far deeper).
Unfortunately, our current rulers pretend to democracy and therefore cultivate an underclass.
In addition, the constant movement left guarantees disastrous screw up sooner or later.
When will we learn to anarchy?