Can China Avoid the Soviet Union's Fate? | Asian American Issues

CAN CHINA AVOID THE SOVIET UNION'S FATE?

he People's Republic of China likes to compare itself with the United States. Both governments were forged to throw off the imperial yoke. Both are amalgams of many races and nationalities. Both are great continental powers capable of harnessing immense resources to promote national agendas around the world.
     Beijing's bosses cite these parallels to justify China's ambition of returning Taiwan to the fold -- forcibly if necessary -- and violently suppressing movements for Tibetan independence, Moslem separatism and religious tolerance. The party line: "In a few decades we will be as prosperous, unified and democratic as you Americans."
     Unfortunately, some observers see closer parallels to the former Soviet Union.
     Founded in 1910 to free Russian peasants from oppressive landowners and a weak imperial government, the Soviet government quickly and ruthlessly expanded into a superpower that rivaled the United States in military might and reach. On top of nearly 300 million citizens of several dozen captive nationalities, the Soviet Union became the puppetmasters of virtually every Eastern European government. By 1989 it was buckling under the burden of superpower competition. In 1991 the communists lost power to the reformist Yeltsin. The Soviet Union broke apart into Russia and a dozen independent republics. Today Russia is a nation of 150 million struggling to build a capitalist economy from the rubble of the communist meltdown.
     Among the Soviets' earliest converts were Mao Tsetung, Zhou Enlai and other young Chinese intellectuals who saw in communism salvation for the Chinese people from western imperialism and internal corruption. Mao's long struggle against Chiang Kaishek and the Kuomingtang would have ended disasterously without the support of dozens of ethnic minorities in northwestern China who believed his promise of ultimate political autonomy. Their help proved more valuable to Mao than the billions in American aid and direct military assistance to Chiang. By 1949 the Kuomingtang had fled to Taiwan and the PRC ruled the mainland.
     Beijing's bosses have been as ruthless as the Soviets in consolidating territory and suppressing separatist movements. But they have been far more successful in creating a functioning economy. They began capitalist reforms in 1979. By 2001 China's economy had become free enough to enter the World Trade Organization. For the past two decades it has grown at an average annual rate of 9%. Few of China's 1.25 billion go hungry and about 125 million enjoy living standards comparable to Malaysia and the Philippines. By some measure China has just surpassed Japan in GDP and will surpass the U.S. by 2025.
     But China's future as a united nation is far from assured.
     Even assuming peaceful reunification with Taiwan and victory over Tibetan separatists, Beijing's leaders face some big hurdles. They must integrate a billion subsistence-level farmers and workers into the consumer economy of the east coast or face ethnic discontent on a scale that would dwarf America's racial strife of the 1960s. Yet burdening the developed regions could breed separatist sentiment in Guangdong, Fujien, Manchuria and other regions. Over 100 languages and dialects are spoken in China. Long-suppressed religious minorities are becoming better organized thanks to the internet and other communications technology.
     Are China's prospects for staying united more like those of the U.S. or of the former Soviet Union?

(Updated )

To "Amen!",

Prevalent scientific opinion does not necessarily equal Absolute Truth. E.g. Prevalent scientific opinion once held that the earth was flat, and that it was the centre of the universe. (Some blame the Bible for this misconception, but that is because of their misconceptions re what the Bible really says.) Prevalent scientific opinion is an ongoing, mutating thing, constantly changing as limited humanity gropes onward trying to expand the limits of its still-limited knowledge. And, at best it can only be called "prevalent" because opposing opinions also exist. E.g. some prominent archaeologists would disagree with your statement that archaeology has proven the Bible to be false. Thus, while possibly informative, prevalent scientific opinion is not qualified as a reliable basis for passing final judgment on things such as the Bible and spirituality. Even actual, established scientific fact is limited in its usefulness in this regard, as it is focused on the physically measurable, while spiritual things are, well, spiritual! (BTW, I heard that it is now considered established scientific fact that the whole human race is descended from one man and from one woman, just as the Bible summarized long ago.)

I am not saying true science has no value. I am just saying that people should recognize its limitations, while also recognizing the value of true spirituality. As extreme examples, application of science untempered by spiritual maturity is what produces things like nuclear bombs and biological warfare. Science, like a knife, can be a useful tool or a horrible destructive force, depending on the quality of *spirituality* with which it is wielded.

As for your assertion that China is ahead of the USA in the spiritual realm, is dying of starvation better than dying of an steady diet of junk food & carcinogens? I would say neither should be considered a good thing. What's needed by *all* mankind is for not only true science, but also true spirituality to be appreciated and cultivated.
Troubadour
Sunday, May 19, 2002 at 05:03:30 (PDT)

gwailo in NY,

Even by your handle I can tell you don't understand China that well. If you wanted to understand China you will need to use the handle Lao Wai or Bai Guei.
AC Dropout
Saturday, May 18, 2002 at 07:59:39 (PDT)

Are China's prospects for staying united more like those of the U.S. or of the former Soviet Union?

China's prospects for staying together depends on the success of reform. In the case reform fails and China temporarily collapses, whether China stays together will depend quite a bit on its strength relative to the U.S., and to a lesser extent, the rest of the world.

A wealthy and powerful China can quickly regroup and reassert itself in any territory that goes astray, since it would be too costly for the US & stooges to interfere, even with economic sanctions.

Should China collapse and break apart while it is still weak compared to the rest of the world, it would have a difficult time reassembling itself- Taiwan could declare independence without fear, Tibetans and Turks could cause real trouble which would be expensive in terms of world political capital to later surpress.

Even today, the weakness of China vis-a-vis the US allows Taiwan to grow bolder and bolder, since for all practical matters China is near defenseless against the US, both militarily and economically.

A past example of this was the loss of Mongolia- Mao dared not retake Mongolia because the USSR, with their far superior military might, overruled him.

On the other hand, China walked into Tibet in the 50's without problems, as it was too costly for any country sympathetic to Tibet(India, Britain) to interfere.
gzus in NYC
Friday, May 17, 2002 at 23:08:21 (PDT)

The column to the left of this makes the wild claim that "China has just surpassed Japan in GDP and will surpass the U.S. by 2025"

This is ridiculous and I detailed why in another forum, but just real quick, those are based on near meaningless PPP measures. In terms of exchange rate GDP, the only method of comparison that really matters for these matters, China will likely not pass Japan till 2020 and the US until 2050 at the earliest, assuming China doesn't hit any bumps in the road.

Also, this is aggregate GDP. NOT GNP. For China this is an important distinction since so much of China's GDP is created by foreign owned businesses. Also, in terms of per-capita GDP, it is almost impossible for China to catch up within the next century.

Worse, yes, it gets worse, China lags the US in the less well known but very important metric of accumulated wealth by even more sizeable margins.

This post might seem rather negative, but equalling the US in GDP by 2050 would be an extraordinary achievement- meaning China would near the leverage the U.S. in 50 years would have. Considering how powerful the US is today and how much more powerful it will be in 50 years this would be quite something. Also given a increasingly geriatric Europe and Japan China would therefore be the clear number two in the world, up quite nicely from maybe 3 to 6th most powerful/influential today. Of course, this is assuming China continues to grow at a rapid pace while making difficult reforms. This also suggests the pace of economic growth will force China to become democratic well before 2050.

Clear number two by 2050 aint bad.
So, the glass is half empty/full.
gzus in NYC
Friday, May 17, 2002 at 21:29:58 (PDT)

[PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) is a measure of the value of actual goods and services rather than values assigned to goods based on foreign exchange rates. Exchange rates have a way of shifting wildly in response to economic momentum, thereby having a compounding effect on a nation's economic momentum. We'll let the readers judge which is a better gauge of a nation's wealth. --Ed]

In a recent issue of the Taipei Times (an English language Taiwanese newspaper), there was an article (compiled by interviews with some scientists and historians). That article showed that Hakkas and Hoklos actually have common origins, but later branched out. They were both the same people prior to assimilation into the Han culture. We also know that Hoklos and Teochows are related people. Quite often a Teochow can understand a Hoklo speaking Hoklo. But for some reason, it's more difficult for a Hoklo to understand a Teochow speaking Teochow.

Well, intermarriages between Hoklos and Hakkas are frequent because these 2 groups live with one another in various regions of Southern Fujian, Guangdong, Taiwan and Southeast Asia.

There also some people whom I've met in the Guangdong region who claim to have Cantonese, Hakka and Hoklo blood. Some of these people are quite handsome and beautiful.

I think the Chinese as a whole are not a good looking bunch, and what is the reason behind all of this? The reason is because Chinese only marry Chinese who speak the same dialect or come from the same region. I think many of the better looking Chinese happen to have blood of both the Northern and Southern groups. So a mixing of the different groups of Chinese might result in better looking race of people. For example, many Chinese girls whom I've met who are a mix of Cantonese and Shanghainese, Cantonese and Taiwanese, Cantonese and Hakka overall look much better than a Chinese girl who is either just Cantonese, Hakka, Hoklo or Shanghainese.
Southern Chinese
Friday, May 17, 2002 at 15:33:07 (PDT)

I'll address each issue in full, hopefully to everyone's satisfaction.

>Isn't communism one of the great >western enlightenment China adopted.
>AC Dropout

Wrong philosophy, obviously. This actually makes my point, having the right philosophy/beliefs is critical. You're smart enough to figure out Communism is no good, can you figure out what the right/better beliefs are? Not there yet?!

>1. The US is plagued by religious >conservatives, Christian ignorance and >residual xenophobia.
>gwailo in NY

Anyone who understands the U.S. knows white Christians have been losing power rapidly relative to every other group in America, from Jews to all sorts of minorities.

>2. China is plagued by greed and the >desire to make money immediately.

There is nothing wrong with enlightened "greed". What you might be referring to is the shortsighted type of greed, stemming from lack of thought, values, and worldliness. That type of greed is bad, but creating/accumulating resources is GOOD, and a basic part of human nature.

>Yes, the Japanese tried to copy >everything of the West. Like you said, >it failed to do so completely. Why? >The Japanese are not Westerners

They failed not because they were Asians, but because they missed the most difficult to recognize 5% of values, and they completely overlooked it. This is it, not because they were "Asians".

>HOWEVER, China doesn't need to >Westernize. Whoever said China needs >to catch up with the West? This is >superficial and such standard are >conceived by Westerners.

China must compete. Anyone or country can choose to compete, or simply refuse to compete and nature will weed them out. These are not Western standards, competition for the privilege to exist is the nature of life.

>Christianity is not the solution

I agree. Christianity is like an operating system that hasn't been updated or patched for hundreds of years. It is not a great OS anymore.

>Science and archeology have long >proven the Bible and the Torah to be >materially false and incorrect.
>Amen!

I am not religious, though I have scanned religious texts for good ideas. I never mentioned either the Torah or Bible as being worthwhile; the source of alotta good stuff is the Talmud.

And in response to the post from "Socrates", I never advocated Christianity/Christian values or god.

gzus in NYC
Friday, May 17, 2002 at 10:50:48 (PDT)

gzus in NYC,

First off e=mc^2 is incorrect. The proper relationship for energy to mass is a lot more complicate. I know the correct formula and have derived it with several different methods in my academic career. Can you?

That statement basically shows me your are neophyte when it come to theoretical physics. I suspect your knowledge in socialogy, philosophy, and computer science are not much better.

That is correct I attended BX Sci. Where you go? Riker's Island GED program.

Before I decide to debase your stance, since many will challenge you and suceed I suggest you study more of Chinese History. There is a period know as Period of 100 school of philosophy in China. You can then move on the the Three Kingdom period and Song Dynastic for insight to Confusionism. You can also start pre-Ch'ing in with Taoism. You can also study the migration of Buddism from India. And finally you can look PRC policy on register religons in China.

It doesn't matter where I went for HS, it not like only privilege can attend public school in the city. The HS exams are open to all in the who score high enough on city exams in JHS.
AC Dropout
Friday, May 17, 2002 at 10:38:23 (PDT)

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS