Talk:Bourgeois liberalization

Untitled
As it stands, this article is not NPOV.

Perhaps a bit more explanation of Marxist terminology will help. The article needs to remain, after all the rulers of a substantial fraction of humanity think it is something that exists. Fred Bauder 14:34 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

This page, as it stands, is polemical, and non-informative. It is also not understandable to anyone who is already not versed in the subject. This entry is superfluous for those who understand it, and useless for those who need to read it. RK


 * I think it's a lot better since Fred's comment. It is incomplete; so what needs to be done now? How does it need to be approached?


 * I think the NPOV issues are solved. -- Sam

Should someone be versed in just what is wrong with bourgeois liberalism they might further expand on the subject. What, for example, does the standing committee of the politbureau of the People's Republic of China actually fear. That they would lose any election, but what else? Fred Bauder 18:00 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look into some of the Mao speeches etc I have, and I'll see if he talks about it. Documents by and relating to the Chinese Communists would be particularly useful here; it would be interesting to see if www.marxists.org has a dictionary/glossary/encyclopedia style database.


 * http://www.marxists.org/glossary/


 * I removed a lot of the article because it was incorrect. First of all, bourgeois liberalism hasn't been used in

official Chinese literature for about a decade now. Second, the description of the attitude of the Chinese leadership toward Western democracy is incorrect. The Chinese leadership (which is Marxist only in an extremely loose sense of the word) as of 2002 does not believe that socialist democracy is *generally* better than parliamentary democracy. The official position is that socialism with Chinese characteristics is more suitable for China than multi-party parliamentary democracy. The Chinese government certainly does not currently take a position on the suitability of parliamentary democracy for the United States.


 * The position is very different from the official position of the Chinese government in the 1960's and 1970's. At that  time the government believed that socialist institutions were better than Western multi-party ones, and as late as the late-1980's, that position appeared to be in official statements of the government.  The Chinese government doesn't now take the position of the general superiority of socialist institutions.

-- Roadrunner

Article is misleading
As it stands now the article makes it seem that the Chinese government invented this term out of thin air in the 1980's. There is no mention of Marx. To me this looks misleading and deceptive. Should it be erased? 58.247.251.81 (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)