Google v. China

[Beckwin]

of course there can be social change without social progress, because progress is tied to a subjective set of values while change is simply change, however you've just been calling it a "setback" instead of calling it change, because you rejected the notion that social disruption could enact social change in China.

But it's great that you call me uninformed when you've apparently never come across the phrase single-party communism.

[Beckwin]

and despite that I'll be berated for doing research and finding sources:

In the past few years, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has experienced
rising social unrest, including protests, demonstrations, picketing, and group
petitioning. According to PRC official sources, “public order disturbances” have
grown by nearly 50% in the past two years, from 58,000 incidents in 2003 to 87,000
in 2005. Although political observers have described social unrest among farmers
and workers since the early 1990s, recent protest activities have been broader in
scope, larger in average size, greater in frequency, and more brash than those of a
decade ago. Fears of greater unrest have triggered debates with the Communist Party
leadership about the pace of economic reforms and the proper way to respond to
protesters.

Some analysts argue that the PRC government’s common response to mass
demonstrations, which is to appease protesters, punish organizers, and do little about
underlying causes — also known as “buying stability” — encourages civil
disobedience as the only effective means of winning redress. Many demonstrators
in China now express the following mantra: “Causing a big disturbance gets you a
big solution; a little disturbance gets you a little solution; and no disturbance gets you
no solution.”32 Premier Wen’s remarks in March 2006 regarding the need to protect
the “democratic rights” of farmers reportedly bolstered the spirits of many rural
protesters.33

CRS Report for Congress: Social Unrest in China. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33416.pdf