Chinese government tells people what they can watch on TV

[eppie]

Different thread, almost same topic.

On the topic of government influence....is it good or bad I just read about a new example.
I don't have a link in English but maybe google translate will help.

http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2694/Inte...raal.dhtml

In short, the chinese government is worried that people get a completely distorted view on reality because of watching stupid entertainment shows on TV and is going to put limits on populair entertainment on TV.

New rules include: only 2 entertainment shows during prime time.
A maximum of 10 talent shows per year and these should all be different.

Now this I think, is a good example of non democratic goverment policy that is a good thing and will benefit the chinese society.

Please don't let this end in a 'where do you draw the line' discussion but just look at this particular case. I think China is doing a good job here.

(the background to this story is that in China people are really worried about the moral of the people, especially after 2 recent cases where children got run over by trucks. in 1 case nobody helped a two year old girl on the middle of the street even after she was hit twice by different trucks and in case 2 a guy ran over a 5 year old boy and then backed off to drive over him again.......both cases apparantly have to do with financial issues.....China has developed a claim culture where there have been cases of people that helped person that were in an accident only to be later trialed and forced to pay huge sums of money to the victims, and also the retribution for killing someone in traffic is much lower than having to pay for someones medical bills)

[Jester]

To anyone who tells me what I can watch: go straight to hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200. What I do on my own time, in my own home, is nobody's business but mine. The Chinese government, the Christian Right, Tipper Gore... I don't care who it is that thinks their morals are better than mine. They have no business meddling in my life.

To those brave, crazy, entrepreneurial souls producing wacky, trashy, immoral programs in China: Keep up the good work!

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Now this I think, is a good example of non democratic goverment policy that is a good thing and will benefit the chinese society.

Resist your inner control freak.

[eppie]

Now this I think, is a good example of non democratic goverment policy that is a good thing and will benefit the chinese society.

Resist your inner control freak.

[shoju]

To anyone who tells me what I can watch: go straight to hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200. What I do on my own time, in my own home, is nobody's business but mine. The Chinese government, the Christian Right, Tipper Gore... I don't care who it is that thinks their morals are better than mine. They have no business meddling in my life.

To those brave, crazy, entrepreneurial souls producing wacky, trashy, immoral programs in China: Keep up the good work!

-Jester AND Shoju

[FireIceTalon]

Sorry Eppie, but I'ma have to part with you on this one. Yes, there is a lot of bullshit and mindless crap on TV that promotes ignorance. But no government or otherwise has a right to force private citizens what they can or cannot watch in their own home (exception: child pornography, which must be forbidden anywhere). It is up to the people to decide what is good to watch and what isnt. This is why critical and free thinking is so important, so that people can differentiate between propaganda and reality. But censoring what they can or cannot watch, especially in the privacy of their own home, is not the solution.

[Taem]

no government or otherwise has a right to force private citizens what they can or cannot watch in their own home [...] It is up to the people to decide what is good to watch and what isnt. This is why critical and free thinking is so important, so that people can differentiate between propaganda and reality.

After a bit of study on Communism today, I think in a fully Communist society, everyone must watch the same things at the time to promote total equality.

Communism is the idea of a free society with no division or alienation, where mankind is free from oppression and scarcity. A communist society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions.

“From each, according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

In a true Communist society, there is no government. Only a ruling party to establish guidelines and enforce equality. Everyone who can work does their part and in return, gets their fair share of the pot. Of course there are no true communist societies that adhere to all the rules of Communism as established by Karl Marx, and a little corruption goes a long way when you don't really own anything... Regardless of the issues with true Communism (which can't work because of the proven fact that individuals are of a greedy nature), it is clear that in order to make sure everyone is equally informed, and nobody is left out of the social loop (i.e. classes, groups, gatherings, etc.), then everyone MUST watch the same shows on the same channel at the same times, else inequality will occur. This would not be considered oppression in a true Communist society, but enforcing the no-class divisions rule, free of alienation. It is clear to me that a Communist society must enforce TV censorship just as it would stop anything else that might start a fringe power group. If all the social elite starting watching Opera, then heaven forbid they might exclude those not in the circle of trust from their conversations, starting a coo. Very dangerous stuff. Although, I think the Chinese are a little more paranoid of their citizens becoming lazy, non-helpful slobs, which is their reasoning for enforcing this new law. In this case, then it is considered oppression, but not in the spirit of Communism. I will admit however, that I may be completely incorrect, and my opinion is based solely on what I read off of wikipedia and two biased websites.

[LavCat]

Regardless of the issues with true Communism (which can't work because of the proven fact that individuals are of a greedy nature), it is clear that in order to make sure everyone is equally informed, and nobody is left out of the social loop (i.e. classes, groups, gatherings, etc.), then everyone MUST watch the same shows on the same channel at the same times, else inequality will occur.

When the revolution comes, television watches you.

[DeeBye]

After a bit of study on Communism today, I think in a fully Communist society, everyone must watch the same things at the time to promote total equality.

If you haven't already, you should read Harrison Bergeron. There is also a wonderfully made short film called "2081" based on the story. It might be hard to find, but it's floating around the internets.

[FireIceTalon]

no government or otherwise has a right to force private citizens what they can or cannot watch in their own home [...] It is up to the people to decide what is good to watch and what isnt. This is why critical and free thinking is so important, so that people can differentiate between propaganda and reality.

After a bit of study on Communism today, I think in a fully Communist society, everyone must watch the same things at the time to promote total equality.

Communism is the idea of a free society with no division or alienation, where mankind is free from oppression and scarcity. A communist society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions.

“From each, according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

In a true Communist society, there is no government. Only a ruling party to establish guidelines and enforce equality. Everyone who can work does their part and in return, gets their fair share of the pot. Of course there are no true communist societies that adhere to all the rules of Communism as established by Karl Marx, and a little corruption goes a long way when you don't really own anything... Regardless of the issues with true Communism (which can't work because of the proven fact that individuals are of a greedy nature), it is clear that in order to make sure everyone is equally informed, and nobody is left out of the social loop (i.e. classes, groups, gatherings, etc.), then everyone MUST watch the same shows on the same channel at the same times, else inequality will occur. This would not be considered oppression in a true Communist society, but enforcing the no-class divisions rule, free of alienation. It is clear to me that a Communist society must enforce TV censorship just as it would stop anything else that might start a fringe power group. If all the social elite starting watching Opera, then heaven forbid they might exclude those not in the circle of trust from their conversations, starting a coo. Very dangerous stuff. Although, I think the Chinese are a little more paranoid of their citizens becoming lazy, non-helpful slobs, which is their reasoning for enforcing this new law. In this case, then it is considered oppression, but not in the spirit of Communism. I will admit however, that I may be completely incorrect, and my opinion is based solely on what I read off of wikipedia and two biased websites.

Indeed, you are incorrect. For by the time society evolved into a full communist one, the populace would have long been educated during and after the revolution in the intermediary stage of socialism. In a complete communist society everything is done for the sake of itself, and not as a means to an end. Individuals being greedy by nature is very debatable, and certainly not fact (people still debate whether Hobbes or Locke was correct to this day). Self interest, yes (meaning their natural will to survival), but there is a pretty clear distinction between this and greed. Capitalism, on the other hand, both fosters and promotes greed, and is akin to throwing gasoline on a fire. You also forget that humans have an altruistic nature as well, and logically, I think the type of society we are raised in really manifests which of those sides is more dominant (in a capitalistic one, the self interest is dominant, in a communist one, the altruistic one). And because everyone's basic necessities would be met, this would greatly temper human greed, if we are indeed greedy by nature, much in the way capitalism tempers our altruistic side. The history of a nations culture, political system, and relationship with other nations in the international system will also greatly influence the result anytime there is a revolution and a new political system is born out of it. For example, if a communist revolution had taken place in Great Britain or Germany instead of Russia, the end result would almost certainly have looked completely different, though this is also dependent on other extrinsic variables. Im not saying a full blown communist society would be totally perfect, and many Marxists have their own ideas about what would work and what wouldn't. But nevertheless, to use past examples of nations which attempted to do it and came up short; to completely dismiss it as never being able to work, is not only wrong, but intellectually dishonest. It would be quite narrow minded too.

I don't see what this whole law has to do with communism though. China is more capitalist than we are, but this law has nothing to do with capitalism either. Economic systems are not relevant here. This law is very undemocratic, and as a strong advocate of democracy, I oppose it.

[Taem]

In a complete communist society everything is done for the sake of itself, and not as a means to an end. Individuals being greedy by nature is very debatable, and certainly not fact. Self interest, yes (meaning their natural will to survival), but there is a pretty clear distinction between this and greed.

Wait, I've seen this! Oh yes, Star Trek TNG! But there it's called The Federation. I think in the original Star Trek episodes with William Shatner, they still refer to The Federation as a Democratic utopia however.

You also forget that humans have an altruistic nature

Total disagreement here. You never saw my post and conversation with Pete on Altruism? Actually, it was on Comedy. If you read The Price of Altruism, you will come to realize that all we as humans do is for our own survival and nothing more. We desire to help others because it makes us feel good inside, but if we felt nothing, such as giving money to the rich, we would not get that "good" feeling inside. So the reason we give or do anything altruistic is purely selfish. There is no true altruism!

I don't see what this whole law has to do with communism though. China is more capitalist than we are, but this law has nothing to do with capitalism either. Economic systems are not relevant here. This law is very undemocratic, and as a strong advocate of democracy, I oppose it.

I believe their system of government is considered Communism with hints of Socialism, but in the true "spirit" of Communism, I would agree with you:

In the modern lexicon of what many sociologists and political commentators refer to as the "political mainstream", communism is often used to refer to the policies of states run by communist parties, regardless of the practical content of the actual economic system they may preside over. Examples of this include the policies of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam where the economic system incorporates "doi moi", the People's Republic of China (PRC, or simply "China") where the economic system incorporates "socialist market economy", and the economic system of the Soviet Union which was described as "state capitalist" by non-Leninist socialists and later by communists who increasingly opposed the post-Stalin era Soviet model as it progressed over the course of the 20th century (e.g. Maoists, Trotskyists and libertarian communists)—and even at one point by Vladimir Lenin himself.

Communist (red) and formerly Communist (orange) countries of the world.

[FireIceTalon]

That wiki info is pretty spot on more or less. There are so many different branches of socialism and Marxism, and many of them fundamentally disagree with one another...Social Democrats for example, believe capitalism can be reformed, and thus reject revolution. Traditional Marxists have several factions, though most agree revolution is necessary. Where they often differ is how the revolution should be implemented. Rosa Luxemburg was one which strongly advocated workers rights and felt the revolution should be manifested through them, she rejected self-determination of the state. Lenin and Trotsky disagreed. The Anarchists and libertarian socialists held views pretty similar to Luxemburg's, though there were variations of these groups as well. Of course there are still the nut-jobs who believe in Stalinism or Maoism, but most reasonable Marxists now heavily reject them and seek to distance themselves as far from them as possible, as they view both of them to be more fascist than Marxist. It is my personal opinion that Mao, and probably Stalin as well, were not true Marxists at heart, and had held only their personal desire for power as a true objective from the beginning. I could be wrong, and I will never know, I only have history and what I have read about them to form a judgement. But their actions sharply contrast with the ideas and philosphy of Marx, that is for sure.

China shouldn't be called communist, when they are more capitalist than we are. Applying terms to things which are such in name only, promotes misinformation and distorts the true meaning of the words.

Regarding altruism, I've seen that argument that anything we do for others is only to make us feel good, and that makes us selfish. Even if it makes one feel satisfaction by helping others, nevertheless the action done helps someone in some way. In other words, how it pertains to our feeling is irrelevant in my opinion. Altruism is altruism, whether it's done to make us feel satisfaction for ourselves or not. Guess we have to agree to disagree there. Although, I suppose one could use altruism as an instrument of malicious intent. I had an $70 sushi dinner tonight, knowing that my funds are tight at the moment. The waitress was very pleasant and did her job well. I left her a nice tip. But I didn't do it to make me feel "good inside". I did it because it was the right thing to do, nothing more nothing less. But let me tell you, I didnt get this "good feeling" inside afterward, nor did I feel bad.

[LavCat]

You also forget that humans have an altruistic nature

Total disagreement here. You never saw my post and conversation with Pete on Altruism? Actually, it was on Comedy. If you read The Price of Altruism, you will come to realize that all we as humans do is for our own survival and nothing more. We desire to help others because it makes us feel good inside, but if we felt nothing, such as giving money to the rich, we would not get that "good" feeling inside. So the reason we give or do anything altruistic is purely selfish. There is no true altruism!

Vampire bats will share blood with bats that don't have any.

[Taem]

Vampire bats will share blood with bats that don't have any.

Propagation of the species... Goes back to what I initially said: it all boils down to survival.

---

Regarding altruism, I've seen that argument that anything we do for others is only to make us feel good, and that makes us selfish. Even if it makes one feel satisfaction by helping others, nevertheless the action done helps someone in some way. In other words, how it pertains to our feeling is irrelevant in my opinion. Altruism is altruism, whether it's done to make us feel satisfaction for ourselves or not.

I'm sure this could include donating to public radio, but in that vein, would also include donating to campaigns, or better yet, corporations donating to their "favorite" candidate because he believes in the view they share... its all Altruism, right? And greed is still greed.

I had an $70 sushi dinner tonight, knowing that my funds are tight at the moment. The waitress was very pleasant and did her job well. I left her a nice tip. But I didn't do it to make me feel "good inside". I did it because it was the right thing to do, nothing more nothing less. But let me tell you, I didnt get this "good feeling" inside afterward, nor did I feel bad.

Social norm. If you were in Mexico or Europe, you wouldn't think twice on NOT tipping her. Because it was expected of you, you did what was required to fit into society... survival at its finest.

Guess we have to agree to disagree there.

Seems we will unfortunately. We could go round and round in circles with examples, as we did in that Comedy thread, but could never reach a definitive conclusion on this subject.

A little OT. Here's a thought I've been kicking around lately: What if humans developed a way to "absorb" elements from the air that we needed to sustain our body, instead of having to metabolize nutrients? Then there would no longer be any need for food, and hence no restaurants, grocery stores, food suppliers, garden supply stores, etc., etc. I'd venture a guess that most of our industrial revolution happened because we needed new ways to harvest food and get food to the masses. I think food and all offshoots of business relating to food represents at least 65% of everything in our lives, from marketing to talk shows, to allergies to mental health issues - it surrounds us! Now couple that with removing religion from our world - just blanking everyone's memory of the subject, removing all texts, and starting from scratch. You just removed a further 25% of what consumes our lives and thoughts. Finally, what if you made everyone the same (you gave me this thought FireIceTalon, with all your Communism talk); I mean completely the same, i.e. asexual clones without any defining characteristics that reproduced via a non-enjoying event (instead of the pleasurable experience we have now), in other words, purely for the survival of the species. If you did all of these things, what would be the purpose of our lives? What would we do? What would define us, or better yet, what would drive us? I couldn't think of a thing, save for domination. There would be no reason to live. No real purpose to this, just a thought I had recently.

[FireIceTalon]

I dont see how location makes a difference on me leaving a tip. I do so not because it is custom or a norm in society, but because I personally feel it is the right thing to do, in this case it so happens choice goes along with the majorities choice. I know people who don't leave tips, and have no shame in it. But I stand firm in my beliefs for their sake, be they in the majority or minority.

You make it sound as if Marxism endeavors to turn everyone into mindless robots (correct me if I'm wrong) that have no conscience, like we will all be walking around with a sort of self-imposed dementia or something. This is a pretty unfair, oversimplified observation, which completely ignores or renders all the components of Marxism to be useless: its philosophy (Dialectical Materialism), its history (Historic Determinism and the history of class struggle), and its economics (socialism and communism).

[Taem]

I dont see how location makes a difference on me leaving a tip.

I was referring to how in those countries, it is customary to not leave a tip, but because it is customary to leave a tip here in America, we choose to do so as part of the social norm.

You make it sound as if Marxism endeavors to turn everyone into mindless robots (correct me if I'm wrong) that have no conscience, like we will all be walking around with a sort of self-imposed dementia or something. This is a pretty unfair, oversimplified observation, which completely ignores what Marxism is really about.

Lol, no not even. Sorry that's what you read into what I wrote. I should have just made a new thread for that/this off-shoot. It [the muse in question] wasn't even related to Communism at all. The thought starting while I pondered the concepts of total equality, and how far it could go, then pondered the purpose of life, and took away all the purposes too see what was left, then pondered some more on what that meant. Believe me, these thoughts I mused on have nothing to do with Communism; I only mentioned it in the same thread because that is what got me thinking about it [my muse] in a round-about way in the first place. Oh man, I'm still giggling; sorry about the bad communication on my part. I can really see how that might have been taken the wrong way. I'm actually enjoying reading your views on Communism to be honest. It's hard to get a non-biased view on things sometimes, so to hear a fresh perspective is very refreshing.

[FireIceTalon]

Hmmm, a world where reproducing without intercourse takes place. Now, THAT would truly be awful

[Treesh]

Hmmm, a world where reproducing without intercourse takes place. Now, THAT would truly be awful

Why? Instead of looking at it as taking away intercourse from reproducing, try to look at it as taking reproduction away from intercourse. If we're doing a wiping of the slate here and choosing what goes and what stays, keep the intercourse but it'll just be for entertainment value. Who knows, without the religions that say it's evil and without having to worry about ending up with a child (although I'm assuming disease will still be a concern), people will stop being quite so repressed and really enjoy themselves. It could be a good thing. You just never know.

[Taem]

Instead of looking at it as taking away intercourse from reproducing, try to look at it as taking reproduction away from intercourse. If we're doing a wiping of the slate here and choosing what goes and what stays, keep the intercourse but it'll just be for entertainment value. Who knows, without the religions that say it's evil and without having to worry about ending up with a child (although I'm assuming disease will still be a concern), people will stop being quite so repressed and really enjoy themselves. It could be a good thing. You just never know.

Interesting, so instead of viewing my prose as intrinsically negative as I concluded, you take an optimistic viewpoint on the subject. Please explain, preferrably the bolded parts, because I can only see negative. I consider myself an optimist, despite not believing in altruism or god, however I see human natures requirement of increasing power as necessary to our mental health and well-being. It is our drive, and that concept has been capitalized in many science fiction shows. In summation, take away all the little things that give us survival (which we've grown to enjoy), and you are left with self-absorbed, power-hungry fiends.

[FireIceTalon]

Instead of looking at it as taking away intercourse from reproducing, try to look at it as taking reproduction away from intercourse. If we're doing a wiping of the slate here and choosing what goes and what stays, keep the intercourse but it'll just be for entertainment value. Who knows, without the religions that say it's evil and without having to worry about ending up with a child (although I'm assuming disease will still be a concern), people will stop being quite so repressed and really enjoy themselves. It could be a good thing. You just never know.

Interesting, so instead of viewing my prose as intrinsically negative as I concluded, you take an optimistic viewpoint on the subject. Please explain, preferrably the bolded parts, because I can only see negative. I consider myself an optimist, despite not believing in altruism or god, however I see human natures requirement of increasing power as necessary to our mental health and well-being. It is our drive, and that concept has been capitalized in many science fiction shows. In summation, take away all the little things that give us survival (which we've grown to enjoy), and you are left with self-absorbed, power-hungry fiends.

Wow, no wonder we disagree. The bold statement is where we fundamentally and radically depart. See, I view will to power as not only unnecessary for our well being, but in fact, as being quite self destructive to it. Power corrupts, both as an end in itself, and as the means used to obtain it. It also creates a sort of "state of war", because those without power either see those with it as a threat, or they also want that same power.

Regarding religion, I do not believe in God either, and I view all organized religion in general to not only be an indoctrination of the belief of a invisible yet ultimate authoritarian sky wizard; but one that also creates social and cultural divisions which cannot be forestalled. Religion probably has more blood on its hands than any other identity construct.