Jackie Chan a Communist?

I know this is old news for a lot of people, but I wanted to bring up the topic again because I still cannot believe it....of all people, Jackie Chan became a Communist??? Like WTF?

Well, weather we wanna face it or not, he is a communist and he is such a jerk and an asshole now that he refuses to give any of his millions to his only son Jeycee Chan when he passes away, instead he is giving it all to charity....oooh how thoughtful of you Jackie NOT.

On top of him becoming a communist to as he quotes ''End hunger'' (As if you can end hunger in China let alone anywhere else by becoming a communist) he once said on April 18th of 2009 that the ''Chinese need to be controlled'' and that he thinks people who are too ''Free'' get away with too much.

He also thinks taiwanese freedom is a ''Joke.''

Jackie no doubt is the best stunt man who has ever lived, and I still love to watch his movies for the martial arts, comedy and stunts in them but otherwise Jackie can go **** himself.

He said say one thing that was true tho, and its that ''America is the most corrupt place I have ever been'' as he said and yes it is corrupt but so is China, when you talk about a place that has been dominated for hundreds if not thousands of years by communist rule mainly because of General Mao, you can't deny it. If only Wong Fei Hung, Sun Yat Sen and other revolutionaries who were not communists could have fought harder we would not have this...but it wasn't their fault....people still haven't caught on despite the great things they accomplished.

Here's a little present for you Jackie ....I..... Its the middle finger ;)

Here is an article from last year that more discuses his ''Communist'' Beliefs:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/how-jackie-chan-quit-hollywood-1797268

And here is a video I made about the topic just for the hell of it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcDQtiewMgs

being a shill for the PRC doesn't mean you're intellectually a communist.

Could you tell me why it is so bad to be a communist?

Because 'murica, freedom fries, boobies, bald eagles, etc.

lets just shut this down right now and stay on topic about Jackie please.

and what is there to discus? There's nothing wrong with being a communist so why should anyone care if he is one?

So he's a communist. And that is that.

This is absolutely topic related. He's disparaging and condemning Jackie for allegedly being a communist and as a result I'd like to know why it is automatically a bad thing if someone adheres to communism. Not that I'm expecting an answer anyway so don't worry this won't go far.

....So?

The man can't have different views, opinions and political position because he's a highly respected actor, Martial artist and stunt coordinator even outside of Asia?

You'd think its the more reason why he should be entitled to all of that instead of the complete opposite.

well don't blame me if this thread turns into a clusterfuck about what communism actually is. I gave a definitive response to him already even though he's a troll.

What's wrong with being communist?

Let the man chose his way of life.

Also, I do believe in equality.

I mean look at it this way, the old Police Story movies were in Canto and starred Jackie as a Hong Kong cop. But now the Police Story reboot is in Mandarin and he stars as a cop in the mainland.

There's been a pivot in focus for the Hong Kong movie industry from Hong Kong to the much larger mainland audience. And yes, while pivoting they kiss the ass of the PRC and mainland nationalists.

want a cookie?

I watch about life of Jackie Chan from Netflix.. Jackie and his parents are from China and he has a brother still in China that he never met all his life.. but whatever.

Anyway, these days I don't really care communist, freedom, or whatever, I just need a job and everybody needs a job.. what's good if you live in a freedom world and having no jobs.. America isn't really freedom anyway come to think of it.

So what?

Let him believe what he wants.

Well everybody is hypocritical in some way or another.

Yes please.

How come?

America has quite a big problem with class inequality. and you aren't exactly the best for minority rights either.

I'm not sure if class equality and freedom are similar concepts.

I mean Pakistan has a lower Gini coefficent than the US... As does Mongolia, India, and glorious Kyrgyzstan.

lol this is coming from the dumbass that has both the EDL and the BNP, fascist organizations, overrunning his country.

I want more Americans to be less corrupt

And that is that

Those are a vocal minority with no power or influence. UKIP however is becoming a problem

While communism doesn't tickle my fancy, what's wrong with him being one TC?

Also, inb4 complete America hate shitstorm.

Okay, but we don't have anything close to either of those 3 in the US.

Hi dave

UKIP is basically the equivalent of the republican party. BNP and EDL are just racist morons nothing more, I'm sure America has it's share of those as well.

A fair and just distribution of wealth is the embodiment and real expression of freedom. Without it, only a semblance of freedom can exist. Therefore the more income equality exists in a country, the more that country possesses of freedom.

Just throwing a thought here.

So Pakistan and Bangladesh possess more freedom than the US, UK, and Japan? The weed in Gaza City must be good.

The KKK and the Westboro Baptist Church are nothing compared to the BNP/EDL.

No they're worse.

I highly doubt income equality is of a higher degree in Pakistan than in U.S or the UK...

KKK is nothing nowadays and the Westboro Baptist Church is a small group of people, not an entire national movement like the EDL/BNP. So yeah, the UK seems to be a far more shitty place to live in if you're a minority.

Are you implying that the EDL or BNP do anything?

They turn more people into bigots by spreading their propaganda? Just because they have minimal political power doesn't mean shit, they still have a much larger influence than both the Westboro Church and the KKK.

the more you know

Egypt's looking good on there too. Must be quite free. >_>

It's clear that he wants to pander to China during the last few years. I mean, many Asian performers (and Hollywood) do now. But making disparaging remarks about other regions/countries? Not cool.

I assuming you're reevaluating your worldview right now?

Yea I've been looking at the whole thing. I believe that the volume of wealth is an important metric that is unaccounted for using crude data and mere statistics. No matter how unelgalitarian an economy is and no matter how unjust its wealth distribution might be, the government is still obliged to keep the country functional and provide a minimum level of subsistence for its citizens. When the volume of a state's wealth is modest, it may appear to be doing better than some countries with a much higher volume of wealth in these areas, but in reality its not really the case. What I'm getting at is that you can only be so unjust or unfair without letting people starve to death.

Assume I have a kid and you have one too. We both provide for these kids. The total amount of my capital is 1000$ and that of yours is 100,000$. I spend 100$ a year attending to all of my kid's needs and well being and you on the other hand spend 1000$ on the same things. Using statistics and relativity, my kid "owns" 10% of my capital while yours owns 1% of your capital. The reasons that I appear to be more egalitarian than you with my kid is that I only own 1000$ and if I try to cut anything out of the 100$ I spend on my kid he'd starve to death or just be anaemic. I effectively can't go any lower and if I could I would've. In a nutshell, we both suck at our jobs, each in his own way and according to his conditions, but at the end of the day your kid is better off than mine.

@Storm_Marine: Short version is, where there isn't enough wealth, income inequality can only proliferate so much before it trips over minimum subsistence level of the people and basic requirements of the state's budget to keep the country running.

So? Communism has it's heart in the right place but unfortunately it's ever so abused.

If you lined up the wealthier, developed countries up by income inequality it still wouldn't make sense as a scale of individual freedom, not to mention HDI.

Elaborate please.

I just want another Rush Hour movie. I do not care about Jackie Chan personal life.

Jackie Chan Adventures was one of my favorite cartoons as a child.

Argh forget about that then. Look at it this way, imagine if Qatar decided to take all it's oil money and paid each citizen a equal portion every month. Then they banned capital gains and made a few other adjustments to the economy. Everyone would have a lot of money to live on, and everyone would be pretty much equal. Would Qatar then be the freest country in the world? :/

What's wrong with that exactly?

People would be much more free if we eliminated the root of income inequality. The majority of workplaces are despotic due to private ownership of capital, and as a result the majority of people feel alienated from the labour, because they can't work creatively under their own terms and were pushed there by market forces. A capitalist economy is a capitalist economy at the end of the day, no matter how much wealth redistribution the state does. That's not to say I don't believe social democratic capitalism is more desirable than laissez-faire. One can not conceptualize freedom alone on an island, an understanding of freedom comes from how one relates to others. Equality, only under law does not entail liberty.