Hafnium said:
I honestly didn't know about Sun Yat-Sen revolution, I only know a bit of Mao's through chinese movies and what my girlfriend's told me (she's been there about 15 times, though obviously not during Mao).
.
Sun Yat-sen was the one that revolted against the age-old empire, and was the founder of the Guomindang - when he first founded the party, its programme resembled that of the communist party in many ways. In fact, he is still revered as a great chinese liberator both by the People's Republic of China (China) and the Republic of China (Taiwan). Sadly, after his early demise, he was succeeded by Chiang Kai-shek, who took the party towards a more nationalist and right-winged standpoint. This resulted in a large split in the party, effectively negating all the progress the country had made during Sun Yat-sen's leadership.
Mao's revolution was not really a revolution as such, because Chiang Kai-shek and the Guomindang never really had a tight grip on the nation in the first place, because of that split. It was more of a war between the two greatest warlords of the region, and only after the defeat of one of them would the nation unify under one flag again... Although strictly speaking, Chiang Kai-shek was never truly defeated - he kept on ruling over the Republic of China from Taiwan until his death in the mid 70's. The UN also considered the Taiwanese government to be the legitimate one until the early 70's, when the mainland 'communist' government were finally recognized as the sovereign leaders of China.
... Sorry for the off-topic history lesson, I just like talking about it, and you seemed receptive.
Hafnium said:
There seems to be some huge misunderstandings about these things throughout society (that includes the politicians that should know better), I certainly haven't been well informed about it.
According to what you say about socialism, it seems weird that the party I support the most ("Socialist Peoples Party" in english), want more government and spending, and the current government (center-right) are in the process of dismantling and privatizing everything they can to lower taxes for the richest.
Ugh, very much agreed. It's the unfortunate effect of half a century of cold war and Soviet/American propaganda. The Soviet Union claimed to be a communist society, and so everyone believed them. I've always wondered why they were so believable on that specific point, when everyone assumed they were lying bastards on all other points. However, in academic circles it's common knowledge that the eastern bloc practised real-socialism rather than communism. It's just never gotten out to the public on a larger scale because of the propaganda surrounding the subject. The Soviets wanted everyone to think they were communists, because that would give them goodwill. The Americans wanted everyone to think the Soviets were communists as well, because that gave them a clear target to focus their hate-campaigns on. As for the average politician... They're people just like everyone else. They don't have any special education or qualifications. So they're victims of the propaganda-machine just like everyone else.
As for your party of choice, they're right on track judging by their name. Because they're socialists. Socialism is the stage that preceeds communism, in which you attempt to build a new society and a new man. Many believe that the easiest and most straight-forward way to build that new entity is by law and regulation - force people to cooperate and act with solidarity, and eventually it will become second nature and they will need no laws to force them anymore. The end-goal of socialism is, however, always the attempt to dismantle the state-apparatus and achieve communism.
In order not to have anyone confuse socialism with the authorarian soviet union once more, however, it is important to note that socialism has a strong legitimacy-requirement. In order for socialism to exist, the majority of the people must support the measures taken by the state - if they do not want to change, they never will. Socialism is also based on a very clear-cut ideal of equality... No man or woman has any greater value than anyone else. The Soviet Union, and marxism-leninism, has abandoned that principle by claiming the people need a revolutionary elite in order to achieve their goals. That elite can never, ever exist in a socialist society - since it represents a new class-split between regular citizens and the ruling elite.
Hafnium said:
I agree that true communism is impossible in practice, partly because it conflicts with human nature on many levels. It can "work" on some level if controlled by an iron fist, which sort of defeats the point of being without centralized government, and resembles a dictatorship in several ways.
That is a major point of contention for scholars. The opponents argue that selfishness and the impulse to satisfy one's own desires are human nature, and cannot be disregarded. The proponents argue that this 'nature' is the result of, not the cause of, our societal structure. If we dismantle society as we know it through a gradual process, we will observe a change in the human 'nature', that will ultimately support the communist ideal. One side says man is naturally evil, the other says man is naturally good. Contrary to cold-war propaganda, communism adhers to the second belief.
