By "true communism" I meant China pre-Deng. During that time and in the Soviet Union, communist ideas about total state ownership of property, etc. were the central feature of state policy and identity. China today lacks that very salient feature, and that's why I would say it's actually more similar to Imperial China than to China under Mao or the Soviet Union for most of its history. That's one of the main reasons why the Chinese government today plays much less of a role in the lives of its citizens than it did in the Mao era.
I don't think the "personal freedom" issue has that much to do with the
economic model, other that, in both cases, they opted for something new. What they did abandon, once the cultural revolution was over, was the "utopianist" approach to social and economic construction and instead adopted a "pragmatic" approach. Once you are no longer building a "utopia" what is the point in micromanaging people's lives?
In favoring "pragmatism" (in this sense) over "utopianism", I think they are becoming more "Chinese", actually, as utopianism is a feature of Western political philosophy more than Chinese. Western political philosophy, to a much greater extent, was developed by "writers" or philosophers, as opposed to statesmen or "ministers", which predominate in Chinese political philosophy.
from airsuperiority's post: because humans are competitive animals, therefore capitalism is a more realistic and practical solution that syncs well with human's existence
Well, to some extent, that depends on
which humans.
As well, while humans engage in competition, they also engage in cooperation. Tigers are "competitive animals", to such an extent that "Tiger society" does not exist! Humans are so "cooperative" that states, in this day and age, range up to the billions in population. It seems, the earth's resources are more of a limit than peoples' "cooperativeness".
