Search This Blog

Thursday, April 19, 2012

On Cloud 9: China's Communist Restructuring

Greetings to all!


This post comes at the end of extensive research and thought, both specifically for this post and for unrelated schoolwork. Since China is one of the last few officially communist countries left, I have always wanted to do a piece on my thoughts surrounding how China has been able to maintain its system. In order to do so, I had to look in to some things, while juggling around quite a bit of other work. This week's quote comes from Ahmed Ben Bella, the leader of the Algerian Revolution and president of Algeria, a leader whom I find particularly interesting considering his stance in the Middle East and the policies his country has enacted over the years.


Moving on, pretty much everyone knows that China is a communistic country. It has been ever since Mao Zedong succeeded against the nationalist Kuomintang fighters back in the Chinese Civil War of 1949. But much has changed since Mao died in 1978, and nothing of it has been within his vision.  Mao was very attached to revolutionary spirit, and had strong belief in the power of the agrarian peasantry. Deng Xiaoping was not concerned as much when it came to preserving Mao's beliefs. Market based reforms became the goal of the day, and by now China has replaced many countries to become one of the top economic leaders of the world today. But I believe that China has lost sight of one of the main goals of communism, in that social issues come before economic issues. China has neglected a need for participatory government, and has trumped forces that would sway Chinese policy in the correct direction (http://abcnews.go.com/International/chinas-mystery-bo-xilai-rise-fall-chinas-political/story?id=16163613#.T5CP-LMV2uk). The article linked there concerns a relatively small recent event in China where Bo Xilai was ousted from all political posts and taken from any place he could have influence. But this removal of one politician means much more than the simple murder of a British man in China.


Bo was close to China's "new left", a political force comprised of fresh-faced activists in the country calling for a return to the fervent social ideals of years gone by. The movement has been targeted by China's current system, which sees the new left as a threat to stability in the world's most populous nation. The reasoning for this is clear, as long as you have a grasp of history. During the 1960s, China experienced the Cultural Revolution (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/cultural_revolution.htm), with mixed results. The goal of the movement was to purge China of those threatening the communist order, essentially all those that were a new form of the bourgeoisie. Mao wished to reassert his leadership and ideals. In part, his goals were realized. Poor leaders of the communist party along with all others who posed a risk to China's new communist government were removed from power or taken away from their positions of strength and wealth. At the same time, the movement became dangerously overzealous. People who were simply good at their respective jobs were removed, and multiple institutions like universities were forced to shut down due to the instability created by student-formed Red Guards. While Mao succeeded to bring his strength to the foray and to quash anyone preventing progress in China, he also hampered the fragile ties of his country and caused significant economic damage in the process. When Mao died and the market communists began to take power, they agreed that nothing of this sort would ever happen again.


The one significant time when voices would rise against the new communist order would be in 1989, in the center of Chinese politics. This would become a moment the world would come to abhor. The Chinese pro-democracy protests in Tiananmen Square of Beijing symbolized more than some want for a democratic system in a country that wouldn't benefit from one (http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/news/international/countriesandterritories/china/tiananmen-square/index.html). For me, they symbolize the last major time the Chinese populists made an attempt to change the social order against those that wanted to maintain the status quo in the face of corruption and ignorance of the needs of the proletariat. The photograph in the article above has become famous, known as the "tank man." Western governments at the time saw it through a simple light: a helpless man, calling only for his freedom, being trampled by the communist tanks. And while the frame with which I view that photo is different, I believe a similar message applies. China has become a country where, despite the system being one where society comes first, has placed economic prowess at the forefront of issues. As such, China's power structure is damaging both itself and the Chinese people. Tiananmen Square became the Chinese opposition's last stand, where if success didn't come then death and misery would surely follow. And it did. From that point on, China was silent as those in power played with the Chinese market and made the country powerful in the face of Western democracies. And while success of communistic economic policy despite predictions in the other direction certainly makes me happy, it does not represent the main goals of communism. Communism presents not only an alternative economic model to capitalism, but also an alternative social model in which the rights and needs of every individual is addressed, instead of simply being blocked out by a majority opinion similar to the way we run things here in the U.S. By ending public opposition or any sense of change, China now lacks in succeeding the main goal of communism.


And now, China's opposition finally has an opening to make its voice heard. With the ouster of Bo Xilai, the true communistic principles of China's foundation have an opportunity to take center stage and to return China onto the right path. While China may be able to shut down websites to try to silence the new left, there are far more ways for the people to gather and resist the power structure of China today. In order for the right changes to be made, the first absolutely necessary step is to defeat the Gang of Nine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politburo_of_the_Communist_Party_of_China), the standing members of China's politburo. Currently, the gang is composed of Hu Jintao, Wen Jiabao, Wu Bangguo, Jia Qinglin, Li Changchun, Xi Jinping, Li Keqiang, He Guoqiang, and Zhou Yongkang. These nine leaders have full power not only over China's general public but they also have strong sway in the secretive Communist party. Because of the way China's powers are divided in the branches of government, these men are essentially infallible and rooted into strength. This gives them full choice when it comes to leading the country, even when they perform against the true interests of China. Now that the new left has been stirred, these men can be ruptured from their positions. The Gang of Nine can simply be removed, or in a best case scenario the power of the Gang of Nine could be decreased, allowing for a more representative government where the powers are divided. However, none of this can happen unless the opposition becomes. So now, I call on any and all Chinese readers here to rise against those that would put the economy before you. End what Jintao and Jiabao call communism, and institute a pure system which works towards the benefit of the citizens first, and the country second. If this is done, China can be made into a better communist country that represents a dream which Marx could never have imagined.


That is all for this week, and I hope everyone has enjoyed my analysis. If you have questions or comments of any kind, you can post them here. My Facebook and Twitter are also open, along with my Google+ and email at zerospintop@live.com. Thanks for reading, and this is SuperJew McLovin signing off. 

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Soul Pain: Religion In Politics

Greetings to all!


This post comes at the end of the early spring holidays of both Easter and Passover, which I hope my Jewish and Christian readers enjoyed. Today, I argue why religion and politics should not mix in any way shape or form, and the problems associated with a government that has religious ties. This week's quote comes from Ho Chi Minh, the leader of the Vietnamese communist movement which would make the nation what it is today. I admire him strongly for his ability to push Vietnam into fighting for its freedom.


As said before, religion and politics are not meant to go hand in hand. It's well known how harsh things can get under theocracy, as evidenced by Iran. However, that is an extreme case that goes beyond any bar us as Americans are used to. We are fairly adapted to a system of governance which imposes no specific religion, but allows a myriad of freedoms for most religions. Unfortunately, most of America is Christian and therefore that religion typically has the most hold in society and is given prime treatment at the expense of other religions. Only in recent years have stores required employees to say happy holidays instead of merry Christmas in December. This was an excellent step forward in preventing a subtle yet annoying form of discrimination. However, this also created a firestorm on the right which decried the move as a "war on Christmas", a term which apparently garners an entire website dedicated to preserving a holiday under "attack" as shown here: http://www.waronchristmas.com/. This is ridiculous. I'm sure I don't need to explain that while people now wish happy holidays, there is still quite a bit of pro-Christmas propaganda out there. Stores hold Christmas sales. Malls have days where you can take your picture with Santa. Pretty much every show on television features a Christmas special, and very few shows feature anything about Hanukkah. I only know of one show that ever had a Kwanzaa special: the Rugrats. Therefore, essentially every show on television outside of the Rugrats is discriminatory in some way. But I digress.


Anyway, religion is often a strong factor in American politics and in the politics of multiple countries around the globe. But no matter what religion asserts dominance, it nearly always harms the citizenry. For example, in Saudi Arabia only Sunni Muslims are allowed to have widespread mosques and be fully open about their religion. Sh'ia Muslims are restricted severely, and other religions have even less freedom in the large Arabic kingdom. Non-Muslims may not visit the Kaaba, and women must wear a burka. Women can't drive, and only recently have they been given some freedom in voting in elections for the Saudi governing body, the Majlis al-Shura. Obviously, these restrictions impede on the Saudi minorities for benefit of the majority, a fear which many people share including myself. You only need to look as far as medieval Europe to see how terrible majority Christian repression was. Yet we still encounter similar problems today.


A few weeks ago, there was significant controversy due to the requirement under Obamacare which forced leaders of religious institutions to provide birth control for female employees in their health care packages. Once again, the religious right was outraged. It seemed like a blatant attack on religious freedom. It is not. The belief in the "attack" stems from the falsehood that birth control is only used to prevent pregnancy after sex. However, birth control has significant benefits beyond preventing pregnancy (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/birth-control-pill/WO00098). This blows a large hole in the religious freedom argument, along with the fact that many health care packages from religious employers included Viagra (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/15/nation/la-na-gop-contraceptives-20120216), a product designed to fix a condition which only impedes sex. With all of this came the idea that religious freedom comes before employee health. This idea is harsh and unreasonable. Why should the religion of an employer play a role in how the employees are treated? It damages a business, and can become very dangerous. Say I'm an employer, and I hire you. If my religion dictated that you can't receive any medicine for any disease and you got tetanus, you wouldn't be covered for an easily treatable disease. You could end up spending wildly more money to save your own life while the treatment could have easily been covered by a health care package from me. But apparently, that doesn't matter as long as I have my religious freedom.


Yet this is one of the more moderate examples. Back during the 1950s and 1960s, many southern churches didn't allow interracial marriages because it went against their religious beliefs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws). During the civil rights movement, many conservatives of the day complained that race mixing was communism (http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/10/10/race-mixing-is-communism/), a belief so wildly interspersed with hate and lies that I can't even fathom what logic there was behind it. Nevertheless, these arguments were serious road bumps in the civil rights movement, showing just how powerful religion is in America despite the discrimination it provokes. This hatred inspired by "God" shows its ugly head even today, evidenced by the Westboro Baptist Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church), infamous for its "God hates fags" picket signs and tough stance against both homosexuals and Jews. This hatred harms society in an unimaginable way, and the fact that government allows this horror to go on unabated just proves that religion is strong no matter how terrible it becomes. And I need only look as far as my own world history class to know that many people view Christianity as the number one religion. You can also check out multiple websites which claim that America is a Christian nation, like in several comments here (http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/is-the-us-a-christian-nation). It is not, and the founders of the United States would attest to that fact, I assure you. The point of all of this is that we cannot allow any religion to impose restrictions on civil rights of any kind. I need not remind you that for a time the New York Police Department spied on Muslim students because they were "suspicious" (http://www.npr.org/2012/03/01/147729662/nypd-spies-on-muslims-stirs-national-outcry). We can't let these impositions stand if we wish to remain a free and secular nation.


That is all for this week, and I hope I have provided an accurate analysis to the topic at hand. If you have questions or comments of any kind, I advise you leave them here so I may answer them. If you would prefer another medium, my Facebook and Twitter are active along with my Google+ account and email at zerospintop@live.com. This is SuperJew McLovin, signing off. 

Monday, April 2, 2012

Roundhouse Kick Part 2: You Can't Taste The Rainbow

Greetings to all!


This post comes as the second part of my update to the structure here at the end of each month. The last post here was one concerning a foreign issue, and I strongly suggest reading that before you read this post if you have not already done so. Today, I address a topic that has set off a firestorm in America and has clearly divided the populace among lines that most of us would like to ignore. I am taking a look at the Trayvon Martin case, along with the broader subject of gun control.


The facts of the case are as follows: Trayvon Martin was a 17-year-old black male living in Sanford, Florida, on the way back to his father's house just a while ago. He had gone to a local convenience store wearing a hoodie, and had purchased a bag of Skittles and an iced tea. On the way back home, Martin was tracked by county watch official George Zimmerman, a half-white half-hispanic 28-year-old man. Zimmerman called the police as he was following Martin, telling them that Martin looked "suspicious" like he "was on drugs or something". The police asked for a location, and then told Zimmerman to stop following Martin after learning that he was doing so (http://phoebe53.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/zimmerman-911-call-transcript-trayvon-martin/). After the call ended, Zimmerman continued following Martin and came into a conflict with him. Shortly into this, Zimmerman pulled out a loaded gun and killed Martin. No arrest was made, and no trial or charges have been brought up as of yet. And wow, it's easy to tear this apart.


So much is wrong in this case, it's hard to know where to start. I'll split this first into the racial profiling part, and then the larger area of gun laws. The proof of racial profiling is difficult, but easy to see if you know where to look. Zimmerman has had an obsession with crime and blacks for some time (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/2700249/shooter-of-trayvon-martin-a-habitual.html#storylink=cpy). So we know that it is likely his view of Martin as suspicious may have been warped. Trayvon had been on the phone with his girlfriend, and had noted that he was being followed. Witnesses attested that the voice yelling in the struggle was young (http://insidedateline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/25/10843593-witnesses-describe-trayvon-martins-final-moments-parents-say-he-was-headed-on-the-right-path). And all in all, due to Florida's gun laws Zimmerman's claim of self-defense is all that is needed to prevent his arrest. This is in spite of witness Mary Cutcher, who was essentially blown off by the police department which took few notes on her account of the incident (http://www.wftv.com/news/news/witness-sanford-police-blew-us-teen-slaying/nLSqk/). Examining all of this, how is it possible that Zimmerman truly needed the self-defense of a gun? Martin was younger and 140 pounds (http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x121055164/George-Zimmerman-and-Trayvon-Martin), whereas Zimmerman was older and 250 pounds. Zimmerman had a gun and a car for protection, while Martin had a snack in his pockets. Not only that, but Zimmerman also has a police record for resisting arrest (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/23/2712299_p2/george-zimmerman-self-appointed.html). Pretty much every piece of evidence points to Zimmerman attacking and killing someone innocent because he was a racist.


And now, onto the bigger debate. Should laws concerning guns be as loose as Florida's "Stand Your Ground" legislation? The immediate and correct answer is no. Yes, I know the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms for all citizens. But there are reasonable restrictions. Children and the elderly should not be able to own or be near guns, as it is highly dangerous to their health and others. People should not be able to have any kind of automatic weapon, tank, anti-tank weapon, or nuke. We all know these things, and all sane people agree at least on these terms. However, the argument settles typically around semi-automatic weaponry and the ease with which deadly firearms are attained. We need look only to Columbine High School to know that semi-automatic weaponry should not be available to anyone, let alone teenagers. When kids can attack a school, killing several people and injuring others using this type of gun, it should be well accepted that those weapons are not suitable for normal humans to own. Nobody is hunting with semi-automatic guns. Why? Because a moose isn't qualified as a military-grade target or threat. Neither are deer, birds, or anything else you hunt. Next comes the trouble with getting guns. Many states have a waiting period to get firearms, in which background checks and psychological analyses are performed to ensure weapons aren't being sold to dangerous human beings. But in states with looser gun laws, background checks and psych tests are few, while waiting periods are typically shorter or non-existent, and in some cases may be waived. This allows former criminals and other unstable individuals to get their hands on weapons that can easily kill fellow citizens. Sure, the defense of people and communities is important and we should be ready to "stand our ground" against criminals. But guns are really unnecessary. There is a reason we have police, and a reason why people arm their homes with alarms systems. Because we can deter and prevent crime without killing people all over the place. There is a reason that we have an incredibly high homicide rate per year, and it's not because we have a more mixed ethnic make-up. It's because we have laws that let it happen.


And so ends my end of the month two-part post on domestic and foreign issues. If you would like to ask questions, pose comments, etc., you can do so right here. My Facebook and Twitter are active, along with my email at zerospintop@live.com and my Google+ account. In the spirit of the recent holiday, I suggest you all view this link due to its importance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ. Happy holidays to all, and this is SuperJew McLovin signing off.