Quote:
Chinese sources close to that committee said there are two main additions to the constitution being debated.
One is a clause protecting private property, another sign of the increasing power of the market economy in China. The other is a clause enshrining the "Three Represents," a modification of Marxist theory developed by Jiang that says the Communist Party should represent the interests of all the people, including businesses, rather than just the working class.
|
This is a very fundamental change being considered. It contains two parts. I say the first is good/marginal and the second is bad for China.
Respecting private property may not be good given China's social structure. Right now, the principles mean each Chinese citizen gets the minimum they need, but that private property they have acquired outside of the minimum needs are sort of like "extras." So, let's say on the collective you and several coworkers get money together by saving and buy an "extra" treat of some sort -- it could be a motorcycle to ride around, a car, or a piece of land from which you will reap the profits for yourselves. Then a hurricane comes along and destroys most things in the collective, including houses and this "extra" (in the case of land, think of destroyed crops & flooded fields). Well, you get back, as does everyone, your homes, etc. (your NEEDS). However, you do not get your "extra" replaced. It was beyond your minimum needs, and acquiring it was "treating yourself." It was an "extra" and as for its passing, se la vie.
This example works the same if another person destroys your home and your "extra." You can sue for the home, but you can only sue for the "extra" to the point that you can recover from the wrongdoer's "extras" -- you can't dip into the wrongdoers minimum needs to satisfy your loss of your "extra" property.
Were private property rights granted, this would change. Which would have far-reaching social implications for China. Having a right to more than your minimum basic needs would be very earthshaking. However, it could be good, too. I could go into how (encourage investment and consumerism, etc.) but as most forum members are good capitalists, I'm sure you don't need me to.
The second one is the bad one. Having the government represent business is also earthshaking in China, and moreover is one of the big failings of our own capitalist governments. Microsoft and Coca Cola don't need the state department battling for them at the WTO. They don't need Senators lobbying for bills to help them. Halliburton doesn't NEED an $8 billion dollar contract to rebuild Iraq. This is the dark side of the American system, and China doesn't need it.
Peanut gallery: "But what about investment and the jobs businesses create, Timber, surely you're not saying those are bad."
No, I'm not. I'm just saying there is plenty of incentive for businesses to grow and thrive without the government's help. The profit margin is there, without the governmental cheerleader/paper pusher helping increase the margin. Businesses aren't protected by the Chinese government at present, yet it is growing by leaps and bounds. Even under the threat that the state may one day suddenly nationalize its holdings or under the threat that an accidental loss goes without recompensation (see my example above), US companies still flock to China. Think about your typical Nike/Disney Chinese sweatshop, and tell me it needs the government on its side fighting for it.
Wow, that turned into a [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] didn't it? Ooooops. Teehee.
