[WikiEN-l] Classification of China?

Fri Apr 25 17:34:07 UTC 2003

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Regarding the policy issue, I wonder if our "standard techniques" for
>dealing with a controversy are perfectly adequate to deal with the
>issue.  Ironically, the effort to clarify the issue for the mailing
>list may point the way to resolving the question on the page.
>
>How about this: 
>
>>China has been traditionally considered a communist state, although
>>the Chinese Constitution states that China is a socialist state.
>>Western scholars are moving away from the label "communist" and
>>calling China "socialist", "[[late socialist]]", or "[[post socialist]]".
>>
>
>I'm not saying that this is a really *good* formulation; I'm sure it
>could be refined quite easily.  But it eliminates a controversy by
>stating the controversy.  All parties can agree to it.
>
>--Jimbo
>
>p.s.  Regarding the content issue, it is my understanding that China
>is nowadays a confused and somewhat internally contradictory place.
>Shanghai in particular is often cited as being relatively capitalist,
>even!  I don't really know anything about that other than what I read
>in the newspapers and magazines, though.
>
I have to agree that much of the situation in China is confused, but so 
too is the loose way that people often use words.  The terms "communist 
state" or "socialist state" or "capitalist state" tend to be used as 
epthets more than as descriptions.  The range of images that these terms 
evoke is often so broad as to be meaningless.  The criticism intended by 
an anti-communist when he says "communist" can be taken as praise by one 
who supports such a system.  Their usage frequently muddles the 
distinction between economic systems and political systems, though these 
terms are more properly applied to the former.  But even when the terms 
are properly restrictively applied to the economic system that prevails 
in a state I am often left wondering whether the user really knew 
anything about economics.  Even if the Chinese Constitution says that 
China is a socialist state, we always need to remember that the official 
version is not in English, and strange things can happen in the course 
of a translation.  

Personally, I prefer to avoid these terms entirely.  I would prefer to 
describe the system without attaching the label.  If the description 
happens to co-incide with somebody's vision of the term so much the 
better, but then it is up to the reader to supply the term in his own 
mind.  By supplying descriptions we perform a better encyclopedic 
service than by appealing to people's preconceptions.

As for "post-socialism" or "post-modernism" or "post-fooism", I know 
that when someone uses that prefix his commitment to jargon is complete. 
 All that he is telling me is that one system which he didn't understand 
in the first place has evolved  into a different system that he doesn't 
understand any better, and that they are somehow related in a way which 
he also does not understand.

Eclecticology