Jump to content

Talk:Chinese Communist Party/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Need for a history

Surely there is a need for a 'History of the CCP' article here? Arguably the most significant years of the Party came in the 1920s and 30s; the struggles in the Civil War, massive financial links and assistance with Soviet Russia etc. I would be happy to do it myself, but wouldn't feel qualified.... Jon.

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

Should the history of the Chinese Communist Party be included? I think it's important for people to know about its formation due to nationalism, the long march, its role in the World War II, and the Chinese Civil War.

I expanded and footnoted the early history, and moved the Jiangxi Soviet flag down to the section on that period. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Why bother to talk abt a bunch of bandits? This article should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.24.140.62 (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

More ambitious proposals

I would like to propose some more ambitious edits to the page, and given that I won't have time in the next few weeks to work too much on this, I hope others will chime in and contribute. I don't mean to disparage those who have worked on the article to date, as there is some rather decent content here. But there are a few things that are missing:

  • Better attribution (and more details) in the history section, which could also be broken up into sub-sections (ie. founding, civil war, Mao era, reforms under Deng, 3rd and 4th generation, etc. This might also include major CCP campaigns, including internal rectification campaigns)
  • History should probably come before organization, as the latter is pretty cumbersome
  • An expanded section on membership past and present would be nice. In particular, it should highlight demographic changes in party membership that began under Jiang (a lot of the best research here comes from Bruce Dickson, whose surveys also look at shifting motivations for seeking party membership)
  • A better section on organization, which would explicitly deal with the Party's youth organizations, relationship to the United Front parties, relationship to the state, think tanks and journals, etc. An org chart could be in order
  • A greatly expanded ideology section addressing the nature, role, and history of ideology in the party, including the role of ideology within legitimation narratives
  • Responding to another editor's suggestion to have a "controversies" section, I think "challenges" would be preferable. Depending on who you ask, the CCP's entire rule is controversial. Let us instead deal with current and historical challenges to CCP legitimacy, as viewed both from the perspective of critics and of the party itself. Some of this content is already on the page, but a much richer discussion is possible. My personal suggestion would be that this section should take stock of historical challenges, but should mostly be contemporary, if not somewhat forward-looking.

Thoughts? As I said, I have other priorities that should tie me up for a while, but I will contribute where I can, if other editors agree. Homunculus (duihua) 03:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. It will be a rather arduous task, certainly, but it will improve this article significantly. Colipon+(Talk) 18:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Mostly agree, but as the article is about an existing political party, the structure might be (1) ideology, platform, policeis; (2) organization, power structure; (3) history, evolution, leadership; (4) current and future challenges. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I ask again, where are similar criticism sections for the US Republican Party, United Russia and the Korean Workers Party? You're saying that their rules aren't controversial at all?--PCPP (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
A 'criticisms' section was not proposed here. I suggest you read the discussion. As with pages belonging to other political parties, I think we should be able to discuss controversial positions and campaigns within the text of the article, without relegating it to its own section. The 'challenges' section proposed would again, be a discussion of past and future challenges to the viability of CCP rule. Homunculus (duihua) 15:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The Worlds largest and only incorporated political class.

The lede had 'most government and civil' offices being filled by party members. If it was meant that most civilian and industry leadership are party members, that will likely need a source but should be easy to get. That the bureaucracy in a one party state fills 'government and civil' positions is a commonplace which I redacted to "military and civil[ian]" since there doesn't seem to be a meaningful distinction between "government" and "civil" (unless private industry is what was meant). 72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. The source another editor cited below discusses this issue of Party patronage in corporate appointments in some detail, as I recall. Homunculus (duihua) 04:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
"World's largest and only" is redundant . . . and, as far as I know, the party itself is not "incorporated." Aside from that, this statement does not add any value. I recommend deletion.DOR (HK) (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Right, this is talk space, it has completely different rules from mainspace. I wasn't suggesting that the title of this thread become a statement in the article. See also Civil Society. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Modification

PBSC and PB members added, Sept 4, 2006 DOR (HK) (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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 1980s.

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. --User:Roadrunner

Hua Guofeng.. 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)
Hua Guofeng was a member of the 11-14th CCP Central Committees, 1973-97. He was not a member of the 15th or 16th CCP CCs. Sources: http://www.chinavitae.com/biography/Hua_Guofeng; http://www.chinavitae.com/library/cpc_central_committee%7C15; and http://www.chinavitae.com/library/cpc_central_committee%7C16

DOR (HK) (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2008 (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)

Easy mistake to make: the CCPCC and CCCPC are not the same. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2012 (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.

--User:Roadrunner

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)

I made a minor change on the front page, to change "occassionally" to "also." In academic sources and historical documents, the term Chinese Communist Party or CCP is used quite often. RebelAt 13:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


CCP or CPC? In Chinese, the party is Zhongguo [China] Gongchan [communist] Dang [party], so CCP should be the correct acronym.

CMC or MAC? Junshi [military affairs] Shiwu [work or general affairs] Weiyuanhui [committee or commision], so MAC should be the choice. -- David O'Rear


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)

potential resource

The Party: The Secret World of China's Communist Rulers by Richard Mcgregor, Reviewed by Andrew J. Nathan March/April 2011 Foreign Affairs

99.19.44.155 (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I read this, it's not very good, but it is a source. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Does the CPC really have any actual commitment to communism anymore?

From what I've heard from the standard media, the CPC seems to have de facto abandoned communism and Marxism-Leninism in almost all but name since the 1990s, except for the shell of party-organization of the CPC over China. The standard media describes China as effectively pursuing state capitalism. Plus the economic culture in the big cities of China appears strongly capitalist in nature. I know that some will quote the official ideology of "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" - but that just seems like rhetoric to be an attempt to legitimize state capitalism. Therefore I am asking this: is there any genuine commitment to Marxist-Leninism communism by most of the members of the CPC today?--R-41 (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is some, though true believers are a pretty rare breed. The response to Bo Xilai's ousting from the neo-leftists and Marxists is indicative of their continued survival. For most people who join the party today, membership is viewed in pragmatic, rather than ideological terms. This article should have a discussion of the role of ideology in the party. I proposed this some time ago, but haven't gotten around to it. Are you interested in contributing, per chance? Homunculus (duihua) 02:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, so there is a small faction within the party that are really committed to communism, Marxism-Leninism, and Maoism. But what about the majority of the party? I have heard that there are billionaires who are high-ranking members of the CPC - that is the very antithesis of communism's agenda of economic equality. And like I said earlier, many regard the Chinese government as promoting state capitalism. How should this be addressed in the article and the infobox? Politics in China: An Introduction by William A. Joseph from pages 159 to 161 that I've I've found on Google Books describes that many have questioned whether the CPC is even communist at all anymore and many regard China as adopting capitalism - noting that the CPC has allowed the entry of many capitalist businesspeople into the party, notes that there is infighting in the party between a "New Left" versus a "New Right" - that supports neoliberalism. And on page 161 of that book it says the most prominent ideological faction in the CPC as being consumerism.--R-41 (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I believe I've found a solution. I have posted the de jure ideologies and ideological factions as well as the de facto ideological factions that I have located in several sources, that demonstrate that as the CPC has become an institution of the government that there are now de facto conservative, liberal, and social democratic factions in the party.--R-41 (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
That's a creative solution, though I have some reservations about the use of terms like conservatism, liberalism, and social democracy. It's true that scholars use these terms to refer to various ideological factions in the party, but the meaning and implications of the terms are quite different in this context than what most readers would understand (especially "conservatism"). This isn't an easy question.... Homunculus (duihua) 20:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The jury is out regarding whether the Communist Party of China will have the discipline and integrity to deliver the immense wealth being created due to economic reforms to the people of China. This is not a question we can answer in an encyclopedic context; we can only report events as they happen and projections by experts. I supported economic reforms; they are better than endless oppression and stagnation, but obviously the risk is being run that the wealth being created by the Chinese people will, in the end, simply be privatized. I would point out that billionaire businessmen can be both patriotic and humanistic if they chose. My impression, untested to be sure, is that the Chinese leadership continues to be committed to communism. Whether the people of China are is quite another question. I doubt many have seriously considered the question or know how to frame it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


David Shambaugh's Atrophy and Adaptation addresses this question pretty clearly. I'll quote here, and maybe someday actually write this in the article in some form:
..."like socialism or communism as political-economic systems, Marxist-Leninist ideology has little analytical or policy relevance in the twenty-first-century world. Indeed, Marxism-Leninism is considered a hinderance to modernization and incapable of explaining contemporary phenomena like globalization. The CCP, however, does not and cannot agree with this judgement—for the very reason that it is a communist party. As Wang Xuedong, director of the CCP Central Committee's Institute of World Socialism, observed: "We know there are those abroad who think we have a 'crisis of ideology,' but we do not agree." To reject the underlying ideology is to reflect the party's raison d'être itself...If the CCP cannot jettison its ideology, it is left with three alternatives: embrace the ideology and continue to try to build a socialist-communist future, ignore the ideology, or finesse and adapt the ideology to suit policy decisions taken on non-ideological grounds. Since 1978 and the onset of Deng Xiaoping's reforms, the party has rejected the first option. It cannot really choose the second option, for that is tantamount to rejection. It must continue to pay lip service to the ideological canon. What it has done is to fully embrace the third option."
Shambaugh's analysis is not the last or the only word, of course, but this is basically true. Homunculus (duihua) 21:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
From the books I've read on the CCP, the party has just become an institution of the state. And as an institution, different factions have arisen in it. The same thing happened in the late years of the officially Marxist-Leninist Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, there were known liberal reformists in its Communist party that wanted to transform the state into a liberal democracy with a market economy - such as Ante Markovic who joined a liberal party after the collapse of the Communist party that he had formerly been affiliated with. The CCP's official media can claim all they want that the party is only communist and unified, but studies elsewhere have shown otherwise, demonstrating that there are de facto conservatives, consumerists, liberals, nationalists, and social democrats within the party.--R-41 (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


(1) When the state bows to the party, as in the case of judicial trials, it is the state that is a pawn of the party.

(2) The past 30 years have been the most prosperous in China's long history, and resulted in the greatest number of people having the largest increase in standards of living at any time in human history. While there are many things I dislike about the CCP and PRC, delivering the goods (literally and figuratively) to the people has not been one of them. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"Far-Right" is incorrect

How is the CPC "Far-Right"? From what this article says, the party has multiple, ideologically diverse factions that range from adherents to the original Marxist-Leninist ideology to more "liberal" capitalists. So the political position should have Far-left as original, and far-left to center-right as contemorary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.139.161.105 (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The source given is Politics in China: An Introduction. Oxford, England, UK: Oxford University Press, 2010. Pp. 159-161. This characterization of far right has recently been added. See the section above. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that using any ideological labels is proper or meaningful any more. It may have been appropriate for the party between the 1940s until the death of Mao, but its now disputable. The party is now clearly much much more of a political system or superstructure than a political party these days, and its views are almost as diverse as in any democratic political system. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The entire 'ideology' section is highly problematic. I feel it may be best to just axe it all together. CCP since Deng has not had much of an ideology except for 'to make money while perpetuating one-party rule.' I blame this problem on Wikpiedia's obsession with infoboxes. Sometimes things cannot just be categorized neatly with a few labels. Colipon+(Talk) 01:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Well no, not outright removal. It is indeed the oversimplistic and synthetic use in infoboxes that causes a big part of the problem: there is the temptation to insert a label, attach a citation and walk away. I think we could still render its ideology in the historical perspective as per my observations. There will be academic sources to support the notion. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm thinking getting rid of it is best. If it is state capitalism, nevertheless, there is no short descriptive summary of that as an ideology. I doubt the cited source actually contains such a brief label. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

According to the official website of the CPC on the nature of the CPC [1]: "The Communist Party of China is the vanguard of the Chinese working class as well as the Chinese people and the Chinese nation. It is the core of leadership for the cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics. The Party represents the development trend of China's advanced productive forces, the orientation of China's advanced culture and the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of the Chinese people (the Three Represents). The Communist Party of China takes Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory and the important thought of Three Represents as its guide to action." It's a bit of a mouthful, but the official ideology seems to be "Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory and the important thought of Three Represents." Should this go in the infobox? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

As official positions, de jure positions. De facto, we have kleptocracy, state capitalism, and Han nationalism... but also the prayer of Marxist-Leninist integrity. Basically, the jury's out. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
This edit has made the situation even worse. The left-right continuum refers to some sort of socialist-capitalist continuum. Whatever grave failures the Communist Party of China may have suffered it has not adopted the views of Milton Friedman. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The fascism/far right characterization in the source appears to be based on papers an article by Michael Ledeen, "Beijing Embraces Classical Fascism" and A. James Gregor's book "A Place in the Sun: Marxism and Fascism in China's Long Revolution" ISBN 978-0813337821. Presenting those opinions as a fact in an infobox is somewhat puzzling. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC) (updated to include article/book details for interest. 18:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC))
The conventional socialist-capitalist "left-right" political spectrum is not terribly useful when applied to the Chinese context, particularly with an organization so complex as the CPC, which is why we should just axe it altogether from the infobox, or at least put in place of it a label such as "Complex" and pipe-link it to a section that better explains the party's philosophies. To demonstrate why the political spectrum is imperfect, let's take Bo Xilai for example, who espoused Friedman-esque free-market policies for years before morphing into a statist, quasi-Maoist orthodox communist for political gain and a representative figure of the "New left". On the other hand, those who favour poltical reform but may nonetheless believe in wealth redistribution such as Wen Jiabao are seen as "rightist", despite their socialist economic policies.

Moreover, "left" and "right" in the Chinese political context has fairly different connotations historically - in Mao's era, one was labelled a 'rightist' simply because they did not agree with Maoist dogma, yet Mao himself eschewed the label "leftist" for himself, and indeed Deng consistently used 'leftist errors' as a pejorative against people who disagreed with him. Colipon+(Talk) 18:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I basically disagree with it full stop, not just as applied to Chinese politics. I believe more in the libertarianism (anarcho-capitalist) vs fascist (authoritarian dictatorship) continuum. What's more, for the reasons I gave above, it's meaningless to attempt to tag the CPC today because it's not "ideological" any more, but "pragmatist". It's a system that has its own press and "propaganda department"; its tentacles are spread throughout the economy, where there are party cadres at every level and political structures within 'private organisations'. Let's just take what it says on their website as the "official position", and leave it at that. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I’m not sure when the Ideology section was edited, but to call any part of the CCP advocates of conservatism, consumerism, liberalism or social democracy; or to say that some parts of the party advocate right-wing politics or even far right politics in the ways that those views are portrayed in Wikipedia is clearly wrong. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not. The CPC has pretty clearly embraced capitalism in modern times. JPuglisi (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
But is capitalism "Left" or "Right"? And why? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Like NEP China's use of capitalism to promote economic development is a "right" tendency of communism which is a left-wing political movement. Political thought, and there is some, which would turn over control of the economy, and the government, to corporate leaders as in the United States has near zero support in the People's Republic of China. Observe, if you can access it, the travails of a disciple of Milton Friedman in China, fired from his post and his observations unpublished, “He can’t appear in the big newspapers because he says things that you can’t say,” a senior editor at a major party-run newspaper said. “You can’t challenge the system like that.” "Right wing" means capitalist CONTROL, not a rightist communist tendency. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Like Ohconfucius, I also suggest using their own official position stated on their own website, like we would with any other organization. Since that is already there, is it common to have de facto and de jure ideologies for political organization, or was this a Wikipedian innovation specifically for the CPC (if so I suggest scrapping)? TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
This is the work of User:R-41 who seems to not understand "right" communism and cites sources which share his misunderstanding. Actually Maoists share this misunderstanding and maintain that Deng was a "capitalist roader", hardly... User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Scrapping is probably the way to go. There seems to be a consensus developing. I'm not even sure that the official line is actually worth stating because its meaningless claptrap that personifies Mao, Deng and Jiang. The irony is that nobody truly knows or can properly define what "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" is. I'm tempted to say it's whatever the leadership wants to define as its collective policies at any given time all the while they don't dare to admit Communism is dead and that their party hasn't followed a Marxist-Leninist model since Mao died. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps syncretic is a better description. Even the official ideology is an awkward mix of hardcore Stalinism and Maoism with both state and laissez-faire capitalism. As to what Ohconfucius said, I think that an article should have either both the official political position and the widely-regarded actual position, or no position at all. For example, the Ba'ath Party is an 'Arab socialist' party. However, in their case, Arab socialism is certainly not a Left-wing movement. Classifications on the left-right spectrum are both inaccurate and frequently contentious, so it might just be best to state the different factions' ideologies and not the party's position on the political spectrum.Van Gulik (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Can we get a page number for this "According to historian of Communism Archie Brown, against the memory of the Cultural Revolution, where a form of participatory democracy turned against the Party and resulted in chaotic destruction, continued CPC rule is seen by many educated Chinese as a guarantor of stability.[1]" [2] - Shrigley: I'd also like to see the exact quote you based the paraphrase on. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no doubt that the memory of the Cultural Revolution and the attendant chaos has engendered to this sort of preference for the status quo among large segments of the population. That's in the source (and in many other sources) on page 612. But the characterization of the Cultural Revolution as a form of "participatory democracy" does not appear supported by the source. I imagine that's what TSTF is taking issue with. Homunculus (duihua) 14:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Please note that I did not necessarily "take issue" with anything, I merely requested that Shrigley provide the page number and precise quote from which he wrote the sentence in the article. The other matters will come out in the wash when that information is available. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
TSTF, I am not under any kind of sanction which requires me to request pre-approval from you to edit. If you "do not necessarily 'take issue' with anything",[3] then you should not waste my time and cause me distress by repeatedly confronting my work.
The book to which I cited the material, and which I included page numbers for, is available for preview on Google Books. If you thought something I wrote was not supported by the source, then tell me what it is so I can explicitly address your good-faith concern. If you "didn't have time to check" what was wrong with my edit, as you've indicated before on a different article,[4] then don't treat my time as any less valuable.
As another user pointed out,[5] the specific statement for which you ask a quote is found in many sources; in Brown's book it is on p.612: "[T]hose who belong to the educated elite, as well as the political leadership, value China's social stability and recoil with horror at the memory of Mao's Cultural Revolution. To the extent that democratization is seen as a development which could get out of control and give rise to instability, it is by no means automatic that a majority of those with higher education will take the risk of pressing for political democracy."
What H assumed to be the problem, and which I'll take in good faith as the problem, is my brief characterization of the Cultural Revolution. (Because of the poor state of the article, as well as the general unfamiliarity of the subject, I thought an unadorned wikilink would be inadequate.) On p.612, Brown already links "democratization... which could get out of control and give rise to instability" to the Cultural Revolution. But Brown also wrote a chapter in the same book on that period of Chinese history. I had read how the widespread, grassroots and anti-hierarchical movement of young people had turned against the party, and it influenced my description:
p.325: "[B]oth the party organizations and the ministerial network came under attack... Unbound by rules, and disdainful of hierarchy, the Red Guards ultimately scared even the CCP chairman." p.327: "Between 60 and 70 per cent of officials in the central organs of the Communist Party were removed from office. Of thirteen members of the Central Committee Secretariat in 1966, only four were still there by 1969, and only fifty-four out of 167 members of the Central Committee retained their positions. Half of the ministers in the State Council lost their posts.... [Some ousted officials were] beaten to death or tortured." p.329: "Utopianism was out, pragmatism was in.... The old officials who returned to their posts, after suffering to varying degrees at... the youthful fanaticism of the Red Guards, were united in their determination never again to put up with such extremism and insubordination."
I've answered you this time, because I still assume that you have the best intentions. Please don't continue to challenge my work without clear cause. Shrigley (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for providing the reference, Shrigley. Please add the page numbers to books you cite in future, per standard research practice. The purpose of providing the pages is so that other people don't have to ask you. If you had provided it I could have checked it myself. I hope I don't have to request you provide page numbers in future. I said I did not necessarily take issue with anything, but I have every right to request you provide complete citations for material you add and fail to cite properly. Now that you have provided the source, let me state what my issue is. I hope you understand that it would have been premature of me to suggest any attempt at manipulating a secondary source without seeing it.
Here is the sentence you inserted: "According to historian of Communism Archie Brown, against the memory of the Cultural Revolution, where a form of participatory democracy turned against the Party and resulted in chaotic destruction, continued CPC rule is seen by many educated Chinese as a guarantor of stability." (emphasis supplied).
Now please answer: where on page 612 of his text, in the two sentences you provided above, does Archie Brown write those two parts in bold there? I have the page in front of me and I also cannot see where he linked democratization to the Cultural Revolution. Your description above does not adequately explain how you got "participatory democracy" from the description of the Cultural Revolution by Brown. Please also point out where he says on page 612 that many educated Chinese see continued CPC rule a guarantor of stability. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I am shocked and amazed that you continue to accuse me of "failing to cite properly" and not providing page numbers, when the original diff clearly shows that I indicated "586, 606, 612-613" (which includes 612) as page numbers that support my statements.[6] I still don't understand your objection to the term "participatory democracy". Maybe you're accustomed to a strict definition of the term used by political scientists? I'm not wedded to the term, and you're welcome to change it. As I said, I wanted to express the idea that the Cultural Revolution involved mass political mobilization against authorities, of the kind that liberal democracy would engender, and that this connection between the past and one possible future is what concerns some of the Chinese leadership and intelligentsia. As Homunculus points out, this view is not novel or fringe.
If it wasn't clear enough, the appositive phrase is not a strict quotation from the two sentences of the one page above. It comes from my interpretation of some of the other statements that Brown made in his book, which I quoted above. Editors always tread a fine line between close paraphrasing and original research when they write articles, and my interpretation of the source may differ from yours. As my good-faith attempts to answer your queries show, I was not making an "attempt at manipulating a secondary source",[7] and I am sorry you see it that way. On an extremely controversial article, I would have made more of an effort to hew closely to the source author's own phrasing. But this is not such an article, and I was not making a polemical statement - I think uninvolved editors would agree. I will always answer honest attempts at collaborative rewording or article-building, but I am not going to play an aggressive game of cross-examination. Shrigley (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so we're agreed that "participatory democracy" is Shrigley's own characterization of the Cultural Revolution, and is not attributable to Brown. Someone should fix that. Homunculus (duihua) 19:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, I think you're stretching the interpretation of the source when you say that the kind of mass political mobilization of the cultural revolution is akin to what liberal democracy would engender. Homunculus (duihua) 19:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I reworded the paragraph,[8] so there should be no more problems. Shrigley (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Homunculus, you are also able to freely edit the page. Shrigley, I must apologize for one thing: I did not realize that the reference had already provided the page number. I have the book and could have found the section on page 612 if I had known it was there. I often do references differently, and I merely thought it was a reference to the book, not specific pages. I didn't think my request for the page was aggressive. I said I would not accuse you of manipulating a source if I hadn't seen the material. I did not say that you manipulated a source. I don't know whether the departure from the meaning of the source inserted in the article was deliberate or inadvertent but I'm fine with the rewrite. I did think that the departure from the source was worth noting and correcting, though. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Section on rightward shift?

I think this article needs some sort of section highlighting the general classification of the CPC as a right-wing party by modern political scientists, while at the same time pointing out that it was once a far-left party, as in the Workers' Party of Korea's page. JPuglisi (talk) 10:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Within a Marxist context, yes. They have not adopted right-wing conservatism as exemplified by the Tea Party. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Well of course you wouldn't consider them conservative or liberal or anything, but it's generally evident that they're economically as far to the right as most US politicians. JPuglisi (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think a government owned steel mill or auto factory would be acceptable to any US politician. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
If anything, one might argue that the Hu / Wen administration embarked on a shift to the left, reemphasizing the role of SEOs as drivers of the economy (and, disproportionately, recipients of credit and government bailouts). Homunculus (duihua) 02:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
What is an "SEO" in this context? State owned enterprise, SOE? User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that — and yes.Homunculus (duihua) 04:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Government-owned corporation; still making up the bulk of the Chinese economy. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Can we find some evidence supporting that claim? The opposite appears to be the case, for example, “From 1999 to 2009 the state's share of industrial output by value fell from 49% to 27%, according to a recent report by Unirule Institute of Economics, an independent think-tank in Beijing. In 1999 government-controlled firms owned 67% of industrial capital; a decade later their share had fallen to 41%.” ''The Economist'', June 23, 2011 [[9]]DOR (HK) (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
iPhones are important, but are mostly for export. "Bulk" was not an appropriate word; however, the article you reference indicates the central role SOEs continue to play. As pointed out above; the state-owned enterprise model remains central, not independent capitalist enterprises; Milton Friedman would disapprove, to say nothing of Hayek. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how iPhones (let alone Milton Friedman) relate, but the reliable sources indicate that the opposite is true: China's state sector is shrinking, and now comprises less than half of the indicated measures. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

iPhone's are a typical, indeed, the archetypical, high value product produced mainly for export by foreign companies such as Apple Computer. When you do statistics it shows up. Milton Friedman was a notable conservative economist as was Hayek. Bakunin, or, indeed, Lenin, are Marxists who advocated or used capitalist enterprises in a socialist context, "right" communism. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The size of the state sector is difficult to measure, and not just because of the opaque nature of statistical data emerging from China. There are a variety of ownership structures: SOEs that are completely owned by the state (which is what I imagine the Economist is counting above to arrive at the 41% figure); enterprises that are nominally independent but where SOEs are the majority owners; enterprises owned by the aforementioned SOE subsidiaries; collective enterprises, which are not counted as SOEs but are still controlled by the state; and private enterprises (many of which may still have informal ties with the party.) Taking a broader definition of the state sector, some estimates suggest that closer to 50% of the economy is government-controlled. By any measure, this is a lower figure than in the 1990s. Anyways, the point I was making above was that Hu Jintao's government has continued to extend preferential treatment to SOEs, giving them better access to credit, lower interest rates and tax rates, etc. Under Hu, the government has also made clear that it wishes to remain in control "pillar industries;" some of the industries with strategic importance seem to have become closer to the state, with large SOEs taking over private enterprises in those areas.Homunculus (duihua) 01:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Communism?

If Communism requires no Government, how can a Governmental party be communist?--24.94.251.19 (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:V. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Future of CCP is transforming itself to become a Chinese Socialist Party

To have the legitimacy to rule by the people and not the mandate of the party itself to perpetually rule the people of mainland China for the interest of the party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.248.246.156 (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." --Soman (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Http://AnOpenLetterToTheCCP.com

Well, the page Http://AnOpenLetterToTheCCP.com contains some knowledgable material on the symbol of the subject, I'd suggest having it on the external links section! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.249.122.160 (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:ELYES / WP:ELMAYBE. I think you would have a very hard time convincing people that this site belongs in the external links, especially for a subject about which there are so many other, more relevant and knowledgable source. It might be interesting to have an article on communist iconography, though. Homunculus (duihua) 23:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Founding date

The party was NOT founded in July 1921, but in August 1920; July 1921 was the date of the party's first congress. This is even stated by the Comintern magazine. The Chinese government claims that Mao was a founding member (which he wasn't) and July 1921 is the first known date Mao had anything to do with the party, when he attended the first congress. It's an embarrassment that Wikipedia has fallen for Chinese propaganda. Fix it as soon as possible. 69.171.178.87 (talk) 06:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Ideological ambiguity

The ideology the CPC is becoming more and more ambiguous, this article should discuss the party's confusing political identity in more detail. Charles Essie (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Not really, they believe in Marxism, and Marx wrote when capitalism naturally comes to an end, socialism, as a stage of development, will come.... Unlike Mao and the Soviet Union, these guys have read Marx, and in the meantime, they are waiting... They still attend international communist conferences, and send delegates... Its not ambiguous, people have this strange belief that communism has to mean total state control, revolutionary struggle and replacing capitalism with socialism immediately.. That's how Mao and the USSR did it, and they failed.... This is a point the CPC stresses to this day... They are Marxist, more Marxist than the USSR Communist Party or Mao....
However, I agree on one thing, an ideology section should be written - it should be similar to the ideology section of the Communist Party of Vietnam, but will be far more complex since the CPC has far more official ideologies then the CPV..... --TIAYN (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If you consider how China is run, there's no denying that there is a huge ambiguity. China's economic system is capitalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:D800:107:B131:726D:FFDC:8867 (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

communist party of china have a youth league. known as a cadres scheme. cadres are the well trained and ideological member of the party to spread the ideology of communism among people.it trained youth league from 18 to 24 year age are selected to be cadres and they are given training from 9 months to 12 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.54.112.221 (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Revision

I revised a section using present tense to describe CCP ownership of the economy that is clearly at odds with the current state of affairs. If this was meant to describe a previous period in history, the present tense is inappropriate. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Governing

I found this section hard to understand:

"Although nominally it exists alongside the United Front, a coalition of governing political parties, the CPC is the only party allowed to govern the PRC." The use of the passive mode here leaves us wondering who it is that allows the CPC to govern. Do they in fact use the methodology described by Stalin in 1926 as Transmission belts, or is the relationship between the CPC and the united Front handled in a different way?Leutha (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

High level corruption

http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2014/jan/21/china-british-virgin-islands-wealth-offshore-havens

Worth a mention here? Hcobb (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@Hcobb: It should be mentioned, but I think the main point here is that the article lacks a section on corruption within the communist party (an important subject indeed).... I can fix that. --TIAYN (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Section on Party Leader

The section now states

Upon the party's founding in 1921, there was no single preeminent post within the party, but in 1925 the post of General Secretary was formed. The first officeholder was Chen , informal CPC leader since 1921.

It cites Cheng Li, 2009, p. 64. But Li actually says:

Upon its establishment in 1921, the CCP made its top post that of general secretary, but then abolished the position in 1937.

If there is another reference that supports this please provide, otherwise I will revise according to Li. Rgr09 (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

@Rgr09: Fixed. --TIAYN (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
@Trust Is All You Need:My apologies for not stating my point more clearly. You write that "there was no single preeminent post within the party." You also write that Chen Duxiu was the informal Party leader, apparently until he got the title of General Secretary. This is not correct. Starting from 1921, party leader was a formal post which Chen Duxiu held from 1921 to 1927. This point is made in both the books you cite.
Thank you for the Wang and Zheng reference, I have taken a second look at both references. Wang and Zheng (12) give a correct summary of the titles: at the first Party Congress, the party leader was called Secretary of the Central Bureau, at the second Party Congress, the title was changed to Chairman of the Central Executive Committee, at the third Party Congress it was changed to Chairman of the Central Bureau, and at the fourth Party Congress, the title General Secretary was introduced. The point remains the same: these were formal posts, not informal, and Chen Duxiu was the formal, not informal, Party leader from 1921 to 1927.
Returning to Li 2009 (64), this is actually an article by Alice Miller. Miller says essentially the same thing as Wang & Zheng, but carelessly says that "general secretary" was established in 1921, using the term perhaps in a general way to refer to "formal party leader"; Wang & Zheng's careful description is preferable to Miller.
Miller and Wang & Zheng also differ on when the title general secretary was dropped. There is a simplified discussion of this very complicated issue here (in Chinese; the author is Wang Yunsheng, an associate professor of party history at People's University in Beijing). To sum up, 1943 is correct as far as titles are concerned. Miller says that the 1943 title was Party Chairman. Again, this is careless usage; Wang & Zheng say that Mao's position was Chairman of the Politburo, followed in 1945 by the position of Chairman of the CPC Central Committee. As the Chinese article indicates, Wang & Zheng are correct, and Miller is wrong. I have made the changes in the article that I think this discussion requires, look forward to any reply. Rgr09 (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
@Rgr09: You clearly know more about this than me :) --TIAYN (talk) 06:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Problems in Section on Party History

A section on party history has been started; there is already another article on this section, apparently it is to be duplicated here. Any sort of history will swell the size of this article enormously, I strongly suggest another article.

There are already a vast number of wikipedia articles on various incidents in party history, are these all to be ignored here and yet another version of events produced de novo? Most of these articles already have multiple problems and could use extensive revision, better to revise these than offer a whole new narrative here.

Regardless of whether the whole thing is done again and where it is done, due care about sources is needed. Saich and Yang is a good source and will not lead one too far astray if read carefully. Gao's 2009 historical dictionary is not a good choice; it is careless of detail and gives no sources for its entries.

In any case, the current version of the article has incorrectly quoted from both of these. The first Party Congress dates are from Saich and Yang, not Gao, the sentence on the interruption of the congress is mangled, the citations from Saich and Yang (p. 132) supposedly referring to the second and third Congress are actually from the fourth Congress's "Resolution on the National Revolutionary Struggle" and so on. I cannot correct all of this. If you are adding extensive sections, please use due care. Better to do less detail than more.

Also, rather than trying to paraphrase the raw documents of the various Congresses, which are sometimes extremely difficult to interpret, it would be better to find a reliable secondary source such as Saich and Yang, which gives a clear overview. Rgr09 (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

@Rgr09: I'll be honest here, I don't know crap about the party's pre-1949 history... If you want to write it, please do. But the article must have a history section (which summarizes the history in a brief and concise way; I agree the current version is way to long, but that happens when you know little about what you're writing about, and a bigger problem, don't know what is most important...) . Thirdly, a user at the peer review page asked (believed the article) needed a better, and longer history section... The plan is (as following); shortening the "Party-to-party relations" section (and create an article entitled Party-to-party relations of the Communist Party of China), shorten the ideology section (and create an article titled Ideology of the Communist Party of China), create a Organization of the Communist Party of China (I don't know if the Organization section can be shortened, it doesn't say that much to begin with) and presumably by this time the history section is fixed... But again, if you know more about CPC history than I (which I believe you do), please fix it for me (since it seems that I am the only user who is editing this article, and I don't know 'everything about the CPC'.... --TIAYN (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
@Trust Is All You Need:I simply don't have time to do a concise history of the CCP, so I won't throw anything from the peanut gallery at hard working editors. Since you're open to comments, however, here are a couple. First, how long do you think this "concise summary" of the party's history should be? Use typed pages if you need a unit. This estimate will let you figure out how much space to devote to each section in your overview.
Second, how many sections do you think you need? I would give this hard thought. Of course the answer largely depends on what you want to do, but remember this is not a general history, but a party history. This makes a difference. For example, as far as party history goes, 1921 to 1928 and the 6th Congress is a reasonable period to put in the first section.
Sections like this don't really give you time to do more than list the Congresses, unless you are going to have each section be 5 or 6 pages long. But I don't see how you can do a CCP history in less than 7 or 8 sections, so now you are writing one of the longest articles on Wikipedia, and all for just one section in the CCP article. 'Concise' here should be ultra concise. Anyway, thanks for your hard work and good luck! Rgr09 (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Some concerns

Lots of edits lately, not all of which ring true. I’ll list some here for consideration.

INTRO

.*. The CCP National Party Congress has convened every 5 years since 1977, or 35 of its 91 years (38.5% of the time).

.*. Today, the top party, military and state posts are concurrently held by the same person. This was the case in Sept 1954-Apr 1959 (Mao), Nov 1989-Mar 2003 (Jiang), Sept 2004-Nov 2012 (Hu) and since March 2013 (Xi). That’s about 28 out of 91 years, so while it is the recent “norm,” we state it as a fact without question.

.*. The term “paramount leader” “...has seldom been used since power is held more or less collectively by the members of the Politburo Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China with the General Secretary acting as a first among equals, and different factions jockeying for influence.” That is a far cry from “Through these posts the party leader is the country's paramount leader.”

Founding and early history (1921–1927)

It would be instructive to note that the KMT was (and, is) also established along Leninist organizational principles; that Henk Sneevliet and other Comintern representatives held the interests of Global Communism, i.e., the Soviet Union, to be superior to the interests of the CCP; and that the CCP and KMT worked side-by-side in the Whampoa Military Academy (e.g., Chiang Kai-shek and commander and Zhou Enlai as political commissar).

Ruling party (1949–present)


.*. Mao didn’t “direct” the Chinese Revolution, not even the KMT-CCP Civil War. He was a (later ‘the’) party leader, while the Red Army was under Zhu De and Zhou Enlai.

.*. The concept of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought was not the founding ideology of the PRC; Mao Thought had not yet been identified, and the early post-1949 years were characterized by a far more collective leadership.

.*. The post-Mao leadership struggle was not between Hua Guofeng and Mao Zedong but between broadly radical and broadly conservative wings of the party.

.*. The 1989 Tiananmen Massacre/Incident/Protests were not the culmination of conflicts between more liberal and more conservative political leaders, but a protest against corruption and inflation. More, “Deng’s vision on economics” wasn’t even remotely a concern.

Collective leadership

A member of the PBSC does not represent a sector. Under the 1982 party constitution, the membership comprised the heads of the party, military, NPC, CPPCC, DIC, the former Central Advisory Commission and government. That is not now nor has it always been the case. More accurately, PBSC membership is the result of the support of a powerful mentor and his faction or clique (albeit there are exceptions where compromise may elevate a more neutral person).DOR (HK) (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There are some valid points here - do you want to tag the article for Factual Accuracy and or Neutral Point of View while this gets sorted out? ► Philg88 ◄ talk 07:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
@DOR (HK): Mao Zedong Thought was conceived of before 1949 (was proclaimed as the guiding ideology of the party in the party constitution in 1945), so you're statement there is wrong. What the Tiananmen protestors actually stood for is unknown, everything from against the government to liberal-conservative conflict. You're version of the event is fine to me... A sector is what the sources say. For instance, Zhou Yongkang "represented the security sector" (not officially, but in practice). The same was the case in the Soviet Politburo (they all tried to strengthen their own power by strengthening their base; literally what field they had responsibility over).. "More accurately, PBSC membership is the result of the support of a powerful mentor and his faction or clique (albeit there are exceptions where compromise may elevate a more neutral person)." is a theory; we don't even know if there are organized factions; the princelings is not conceived of being an organized group, nor CYL (tuanpei) conceived of being organized... There is not a faction which is helping you here and here (it has at least never been proven, and is as unverifiable, and stupid, as those Sovietologists who believed there existed separate competing factions under Stalin).... A struggle between Hua Guofeng and Mao Zedong (you mean Deng)?? Nope, you're right, thats a simplification (considering that Deng was away the first year, or half?; don't remember). I could as well write conservatives (but really, what is conservative? Chen Yun gets thrown into the conservative faction all the time, despite that he was one of the leading organizers of reform....) and reformers (but what is reformer if Chen Yun is labelled conservative?)...
The party organization of the KMT probably could get a mention, but I don't get why that is important (in a short and general history of the CPC; I could understand its inclusion in the History of the Communist Party of China article). They were not communists, but radical socialists (its a reason why Chiang killed both communists and capitalists...) .. Paramount leader is a often used term in academic research on China; it has a meaning, so why not use it? It just means he was the leader, the first amongst equal; which is no way different from Mao and Deng, they were just first amongst equals (in official discourse that is).... "Today, the top party, military and state posts are concurrently held by the same person. This was the case in Sept 1954-Apr 1959 (Mao), Nov 1989-Mar 2003 (Jiang), Sept 2004-Nov 2012 (Hu) and since March 2013 (Xi). That’s about 28 out of 91 years, so while it is the recent “norm,” we state it as a fact without question." - yes we will take it as the recent norm since all newspaper articles and academic research takes it as the norm, when Xi Jinping was appointed to the PSC (in 2007) the majority of scholars said he would succeed Hu in all three positions (that was the general belief), and that belief still holds today. What happened pre-Jiang isn't important really here (the Mao era party is not the same party as the present one; different economic policy, different ideological rationale and different relationship between the leader and the party organization). ... Yes, since 1977 (its the current norm, and It won't end in the forseable future).. Most research material out there says the congress is held every fifth year (and considering the fact that the party leader actually has two five-year terms, it isn't likely this norm will end in the foreseeable future).
You're points can't be considered precise, since the majority of them can't be summed up in two categories; right or wrong, and defining a norm is difficult (and not our responsibility)... For instance, no one knows for sure how the Politburo Standing Committee makes decision (we are not even sure if it meets at least once a week, twice a week, or only meets a month for that matter)...
The history section is bad, and everyone agrees with that (even me), and if you want to write a short concise history section, please do (I'm not really that interested in writing one either, but it must be written by someone, and since I'm the only guy doing major edits on this article, I don't really have that much of a choice). If you want to please write one (you probably know more about pre-1966 history than me).
@Philg88: I don't see how this breaks "factual accuracy" or "Neutral point of view" (if you had checked the organization article), this is sourced. ... For instance, the National Congress section says "The National Congress is the party's supreme organ, and is held every fifth year (in the past there were long intervals between congresses, but since the 9th National Congress in 1969, congresses have been held regularly)", how is this biased or non-factual if its stated in the article? --TIAYN (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@TIAYN: Hey, no need to bite me! I didn't say that all DOR's concerns were valid, but, as you admit yourself above there are some issues. The suggestion per the tag was purely to alert readers that there was a discussion going on - maybe NPOV or AD is over the top and something else or nothing needs to be done to flag that. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 08:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@Philg88: Sorry, didn't mean to sound too aggressive. Anyhow, I get you're point, but these can easily be solved through discussions, and since @Rgr09: has righly mentioned some of these errors, slip-out and bad edits, I intend to fix them, and these are not big enough to warrant to tag the article. But we all agree, it seems, that the history section is bad, and that I'm not the best one to write it... I guess I'll just have to do some extra reading. --TIAYN (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@TIAYN: There's no need to apologise - you've done a sterling job on the article so far and I can't think of anyone better to (re) write the history. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ talk 17:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected on Mao Zedong Thought, and recognize there are different opinions about Tiananmen. Mine are first hand, which brings a OR research caveat. Regarding factions, they have been acknowledged (as illegitimate) for many years, so should not be controversial. The Gang of Four is the most obvious, and others include the Petroleum Faction, Shanghai Faction (or clique) and Princelings.

.*. My mistake on the post-Mao conflict; as correctly noted, it was Hua and Deng, although the former was a figurehead for a group unwilling to let more progressive forces seize power by discarding the Cultural Revolution ideology (the “Two Whatevers”). Who is a conservative has always been problematic in Chinese politics, but in specific periods it is generally acknowledged that the shift to more progressive policies was against the wishes or interests of conservatives. First Hua (late 1970s), then Chen Yun (1980s).
.*. The Leninist political organization model utilized by the KMT and later CCP is important in showing that the two parties had more in common in the 1920s than is often recognized.

Paramount Leader has very specific meaning in Chinese politics, and only refers to Mao and Deng. No one before or since has been able to wield such power. And, it does not mean “first among equals;” that is a description of Hua, Hu Yaobang, Zhao Ziyang, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao and (thus far) Xi Jinping. Officially, of course, none of this means anything but we are not writing the official version, are we?

.*. From The Tiananmen Papers and Zhao Ziyang’s biography we have a pretty good idea how the PBSC makes decisions, and during certain periods how often it met.

There was a rather important period between Mao and Jiang Zemin, so I’m not comfortable with “What happened pre-Jiang isn't important really here.”

I’ll reiterate Philg88’s comment: the editing has been very good, and like others I’m only interested in making it better.DOR (HK) (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@DOR (HK):
  • I can add a short section on factionalism (as a sub-section of the "Collective leadership" section... I'll be honest, I think the articles we have (and are missing) on the tuanpei, princelings, Tsinghua clique, Shanghai clique, old-time communist hardliners, populist socialists (like Bo Xilai..) and are extremely bad, and I, you, we, someone should create an article on Factionalism within the Communist Party of China...
  • Hua was not as conservative as how he is portrayed, it was he who began the reforms which destroyed collectivized agriculture and which allowed private ownership (and so on), and it was he who sent Chinese students abroad to learn from the West.. He was probably a more conservative then Chen Yun, but still, its not that simple, Hua was a reformer in the economic realm, but he did not seek a break with the "recent" Maoist past.
  • Fine.
  • A quick search for "Xi Jinping" "paramount leader" shows that people (both news agencies and scholars) still use the term. Secondly, Jiang was also a paramount leader - the media referred to the "core [Jiang that is] leading the collective leadership"... Secondly, people have been writing in recent months (since the 3rd Plenary Session..) that Xi Jinping has diminished the powers of Li Keqiang, and become the most powerful leader since Deng. If that is true or not is disputable, but people are saying it.
  • During the Deng era (that is during Zhao's tenure), it barely met all, and the majority policy decisions were decided "wrongly" at either the Secretariat or by Deng with the consultation with the Eight Elders.
--TIAYN (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree about the quality of articles on various CCP factions, but that’s probably because there isn’t a lot of hard evidence. As for Hua Guofeng, let’s remember that it was Wan Li in Anhui and Zhao Ziyang in Sichuan who initiated the household responsibility system, and that it was heavily resisted by Hua and other more conservative leaders as a repudiation of Mao Thought (see Ezra Vogel's excellent biography Deng Xiaoping and the Transformation of China, (2011) ISBN 978-0-674-05544-5). And, it was Deng, and not Hua, who sent significant numbers of students to study in the West. By that time, Hua was a figurehead. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
@DOR (HK): I've read the book :).. Its good, but its also pro-Deng (the author has gone as far stating that Deng was a supper of democracy, and has criticized his successors for being too conservative...) .. Another problem (which many books presently lack) is the lack of focus on ideology (Vogel portrays Deng both as a firm communist and a closet capitalist) and indirectly states throughout the book that ideology lost its leading role in decision-making (while facts in the book prove otherwise).. And at last, he forgets Deng's relationship with Chen Yun... But to the point, you're right. --TIAYN (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Tibetan Communist Party

The Tibetan Communist Party was mostly formed by Tibetans from Kham and Amdo before merging with the Chinese Communist Party in 1949. It opposed the Kuomintang (Tibet Improvement Party included) and opposed the Dalai Lama. It had little presence among U-Tsang Tibetans.

https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/30128/5/Luo_Jia_E_200911_ME_thesis.pdf

A Tibetan Revolutionary: The Political Life and Times of Bapa Phüntso Wangye By Melvyn C. Goldstein, Dawei Sherap, William R. Siebenschuh

http://books.google.com/books?id=6n4hxVqqwz8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Melvyn+C.+Goldstein%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=d8wgU-DkIcb10gHYsoEo&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=6n4hxVqqwz8C&pg=PA32#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=6n4hxVqqwz8C&pg=PA42#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=6n4hxVqqwz8C&pg=PA117#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=6n4hxVqqwz8C&pg=PA123#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=6n4hxVqqwz8C&pg=PA124#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=6n4hxVqqwz8C&pg=PA232#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=6n4hxVqqwz8C&pg=PA306#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=6n4hxVqqwz8C&pg=PA326#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

@Rajmaan: What's you're point, the Tibetan Communist Party has its own article... --TIAYN (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Political position: Far-right

Add political position: Far-right.Aste9974 (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done — unless you have a bunch of reliable sources stating otherwise, The Communist Party of China, is not a far-right political party. It may just be the opposite. —MelbourneStar☆talk 05:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The Left is pro-democracy, the Right is anti-democracy. China is a dictatorship. Therefore, China is Far-Right Wing.Aste9974 (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
See WP:V and WP:OR. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok then, so Wikipedia is an anti-intellectual pile of trash, copying from college textbooks and online journals only. This policy should be renamed WP:NOT - Wikipedia:No Original Thought. If Wikipedia is just plainly going to plagiarise ideas from Authors they should pay the original researchers for the privilege. This really does sound like a dictatorship.Aste9974 (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Well Wikipedia must be one of those special dictatorships, where you can leave whenever you'd like. With that said, Aste9974, if you don't want to participate in the "anti-intellectual pile of trash" known as Wikipedia, nobody is forcing you to stay. Now unless you've got actual reliable sources to corroborate the change you'd like made on the Communist Party of China article – I'd kindly suggest you drop it. —MelbourneStar☆talk 08:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
must be one of those special dictatorships, where you can leave whenever you'd like.
Whether one can escape from a dictatorship doesn't change the fact
if you don't want to participate
I never mentioned that at all
you've got
I believe you were trying to say you have.
Now unless you've got actual reliable sources to corroborate the change you'd like made on the Communist Party of China
I believe there are many.
suggest you drop it.
Suggestion noted and ignored.Aste9974 (talk) 08:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like you want to be treated like an intellectual. That's not going to happen. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on published reliable sources rather than a collection of the random musings of people on the internet based on whatever they've absorbed from their environments and assume to be true. This helps to prevent it from turning into a big pile of dog shit, although not entirely sucessfully. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like you want to be treated like an intellectual
I never said anything of the sort.
That's not going to happen.
It already has.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on published reliable sources rather than a collection of the random musings of people on the internet based on whatever they've absorbed from their environments and assume to be true.
In my message I was talking about the ability to critically analyse sources to make further deductions based on true premises.
This helps to prevent it from turning into a big pile of dog shit
Ad hominem attacks does not help your case.
although not entirely sucessfully.
I am glad you realise the deficiencies of Wikipedia.Aste9974 (talk) 08:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Whatever. Your beliefs are incompatible with Wikipedia's mandatory policies. You are wasting your time. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Nice post post-editing skills there, champ. You should have replied after four messages by post time. Rewriting the history books too in this dictatorship I see. Stalin would be proud.Aste9974 (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Your attitude is certainly not helping your case. 75.103.10.84 (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The Soviet Union was a dictatorship, and it was left-wing... While its true that socialism in general is pro-democracy, several left-wing dictatorships have been established... --TIAYN (talk) 08:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Any dictatorship is a restriction of personal freedom and thus anti-liberal - by definition.Aste9974 (talk) 08:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
@Aste9974: Are you claiming that the Soviet Union was right-wing, and that communism in practice is right-wing? ... Thats not going to be accepted by anyone, anywhere.... At last, dictatorships don't generally fit in the left-to-right axis/thingy since it was created for democracies (what is left, what is right changes from country to country), in dictatorship there is no left, no right, only one, which occupies the centre. --TIAYN (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The so called "Communist" countries of today are in reality undemocratic, state capitalist totalitarian bureacracies.Aste9974 (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
So? The Soviet Union under the New Economic Policy was still left, even if it pursued state capitalism... --TIAYN (talk) 09:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Capitalism is not Communism.Aste9974 (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
@Aste9974: Let's take a step back here. When you find a reliable source that backs up your assertion, feel free to come back and add it to the article. Until then, arguing about it wastes the valuable time of editors who could be doing something useful elsewhere. ► Philg88 ◄ ♦talk 11:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
TIAYAN is the one who is continuing the argument, not I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aste9974 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Brown was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chinese_Communist_Party/Archive_2&oldid=1136609803"