I don’t think China has became a Maoism country, the shape of current state of China is more like capitalism with one ultimate authority.

I disagree here. In my opinion, a system that relies on ethics or morals of individuals would be doomed to fail. Because humans are unreliable, around the world, even in developed countries. What we need, from my perspective, is law and wise regulation and of course, bona fide execution. — Hailey

Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly, I'm not talking about metaphysical morality such as reliance on justice, I'm talking about morality as a conscious adherence to and respect for the law.

To answer your second question, I would say the emphasis on economy weakened. Nationalism and personality cult are on the rise. So there is a growing tension in China regarding him and his policies. As for charisma, no comment on it. I guess I value more what he actually accomplish during his time as a chairman. For some people, I guess the charisma thing is real, though for people like me, this sort of propaganda seems more like a means to an end since we've passed that stage where there would be a prevailing belief in one person. These are just from my perspective :). — Hailey

In China policy shifts have to be made very carefully, and often shifts are viewed by the public as lethargic, but it is now starting to take a renewed focus on the economy and a policy shift.

I know the words underlined in this 'first paragraph only,' from the wiki article regarding Nozick's work are at best 'a simplistic overview,' but even with the limits of that in mind, the people of China do not, to me, seem to have the individual voice or collective 'people power,' needed to achieve any such notion as that reportedly espoused by Nozick in the words I underlined above. — universeness

You are asking so many questions about political reality, but you don't know Nozick's theory, and I don't think I can continue to answer what you've asked. Problems of political reality and problems of philosophical theory need to be described through rigor and precision, not just value judgments.

If you are typing on TPF from a networked computer in China, are you worried that the Chinese authorities, do have a system of monitoring the internet activity of its population, with the goal of identifying dissidents? — universeness

Actually, the academic field in China is quite free, if one can confine oneself to more rational discourse.I don't support the surveillance of people, but I also see that people around the world are really not rational enough in their virtue. It's hard to evaluate.

How can a system be socialist, if it is one party rule and not based on the regular democratic vote of the people? — universeness

The political reality is very complex, there are many places that still exist the worship of power politics and non-universal values. I am not endorsing the regime, but as someone who came from the bottom of China, I know that the reality in China is very cruel and complicated, which involves the clash of different clan concepts, different regional concepts and different ethnic philosophies. We are powerless to talk about China from philosophical concepts. So my libertarian ideals are all confined to my personal actions, without trying to influence others.

What for you, is evidence that the label 'communist,' is more apt, than socialist, for the current Chinese regime or is 'autocratic control backed by a rich/plutocratic/patriarchal, capitalist elite,' more accurate as a description of the current Chinese government, in your opinion? — universeness

It is really hard to tell, I think both sides exist. Deng Xiaoping has a policy to let some people and some regions prosper before others so that they can bring along the backward regions. Its policies like this caused "rich/plutocratic/patriarchal, capitalist elite". But it is very clear that the current government is trying to create a more economic equality environment, so I could say that China is trying to be socialist and trying to get rid of elite capital, only the process is painful and the result is the current economic slide.

Do you think China, since the revolution, was ever correctly labelled as socialist? — universeness

At this moment, I don't think China is a socialist country. From my understanding, China has had a Nozick-style libertarian economic system since Deng Xiaoping. However, this system has changed in 2018. China has set goals for more economic equality and is trying to move towards a socialist system.

ethics and morality have decreased in terms of culture or civism. — javi2541997

Ethics and morality have decreased is not an accurate description, Yu Yingshi once said that he expects China to be a rich and well-mannered China, but such a situation only existed in the richer parts of China in the past, rather it is better to say that in the past, because of the lack of integration into universal values, China has not built up morality in the modern sense, but it is being built up at the moment.

sorry, just fixed.

On the other hand, it is interesting how you say that Mao's legacy is rarely seen as Chinese people nowadays. I do not understand if it is "good" or "bad" or if it is just a generational issue. But I think it is worth highlighting how impressive his revolution was. Maybe this belongs to the old days, but I think there was a "before" and an "after" in China due to Mao's doctrine. — javi2541997

My opinion,Mao was an emperor, not a leader, and I must make it clear that China now started with Deng Xiaoping, and while Mao did a lot, he didn't modernize China, and in a sense, China now looks like the Second French Republic.

Maybe I understood wrongly, but it seems that you perceive Modern China as highly-developed in economics but undeveloped in terms of ethics or morality.

YES.

I wonder if you perceive that the path taken by Deng Xiaoping went off from the real Chinese socialist culture perpetuated by Mao.

I don't think Mao has any legacy circulating in China today. We all walked out a long time ago, and some people still mention it today because they want to keep the regime coherent.

You state that whenever Chinese officials or entrepreneurs work along with Western citizens they tend to disrespect the law.

When Western businessmen do business in China, they have to rely on Chinese businessmen, but the previous or recent generations of Chinese businessmen were not necessarily well educated morally, and the new generation of businessmen are a little better.

I also wonder if this is a cultural conflict rather than a political one. We already debated this issue in the forum and I believe (I hope I am not wrong at all) that in China, Japan, Korea, etc... unethical actions such as corruption are more punished or socially rejected than in the Western world.

Not sure I understand your question correctly, the competition between China and the U.S. is both political and cultural, but I don't think that China would deliberately sabotage Western businesses, and in many cases it's the businessmen that Western businesses rely on in China that make mistakes, corrupt mistakes.

On the other hand, we tend to see China as a rigid state where the law is effective. I do not pretend to say that it is perfect, but it at least works as it should be

China's laws are not rigid, and I think it's a bogus question that they're actually being revised very quickly. It just means that there are political issues where China has no room for maneuver.

I do not want to sound so ignorant and say "China is a dictatorship" because we in the Western world are also blurred in terms of real representativeness...

I don't think the West really understands China, in fact, on many levels, Western attitudes towards China are being pushed by Western populations, and I of course I don't think China is doing exactly the right thing either.

Not know how to answer the third question too.
I used to be a software development engineer for a large company before I decided to go to university for my master's degree, and I do know that China was in a state of lack of regulation for Internet companies before, but I was in favor of regulation myself.
I do know that the Chinese are really prone to corruption because of our rapid entry into the world economy and because of the lack of moral education in the process of the economy. And, after 2018, the Chinese government's consistent strong regulation and zero tolerance for corruption has really led to poor economic conditions.
I know westerners in China would probably obey the law and have a sense of morality too I guess.
But Chinese people working with westerners don't necessarily follow the law very well because of their own lack of morality, so strong regulation is something that should happen, but just suffers from a lot of suspicion because of our system.

Not know how to answer the second question, cause the result is not yet revealed.

The first question

How deep was the transition of Deng Xiaoping into the rule of market, or said it in other words, the "Modern China"?

After Deng Xiaoping, China rapidly integrated itself into the world's economic system, and in the aftermath of reform and opening up, prior to 2018, China essentially held a laissez-faire liberal economic model. Because of the nature of the free market, this quickly changed the lives of the Chinese people.
So, according to your question, we've basically come into the modern era in terms of material life, but the hardest thing to change is ideas, and from a descriptive point of view, the ideas of imperial-era China are still deeply ingrained in China today, especially in the backward places, such as patriarchal ideology, such as the worship of political power, and we're only a hundred years away from the Qing Dynasty today, and we're still in the middle of the modern era and the kingship era, although in terms of life, there is not much difference between our lives and those of other countries.

Marxism calls for violence because under the basic structure of capitalism, the capitalists will not allow the proletariat to share power. But like you, I don't subscribe to violent change in society.

I am studying political philosophy at the top humanities school in China, and I would like to ask you what you think about Chinese political philosophy.

No, my exam is to decide who can go to the university for graduate school, there are four subjects, Chinese politics, English, Chinese philosophy and Western philosophy, whoever has the highest score will be admitted

I realized that indeed my aim was to take the exam, and I also realized that it was difficult to achieve a full understanding, but I had to have a deeper and reasonable understanding, given that the Chinese exam was very difficult and there were very many competitors.

Thanks, guys, I think I may have asked a unclear question. The birth of Christianity clearly involved political, economic and psychological factors, and cannot be answered simply. But now at least I know how to begin to understand the birth of Christianity, instead of just believing in the one answer that was put in front of me. Thank you again for your answers, this has helped me a lot.

yes, our textbook is explained by Marxism, but I don't want to read only one interpretation, because then I can't reach a full understanding.

Thanks, everybody. I think this discussion has came a conclusion which is I shall skip this arguement for now and come back after my exam. Thanks for reading this, I'm grateful that someone answered my question at such a moment in the first few steps of my philosophical journey.

ok, so is there any way to understand this part of Plato's thought in a simple way?
Although I know that this content will probably not be tested in the entrance exam,but I always feel that something is missing if I don't understand it.

yes, section 5 and section 6

yes

Understand, I'm new to philosophy, I just still have questions about it after reading the philosophy of the scriptures.Now I got. Thank you for your reply.