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 )

Gzus in NY,

You sound like a 19th century imperialist trying to justify colonialism. What you're essentially saying is that Western philosophy is superior and it need to be imposed on other peoples in order to "save" them.

You do realize that Hitler once said that the only reason Russia is still around in the 1930s is b/c of "superior" German influences. You seem to agree that the only way China will survive is to have "superior" western influences.

If, as you say, that "Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism are all garbadge", then please explain to us why China still exists after 5000 years and has not been "weeded out" by nature? 5000 years is longer than any other civilization, as I recall from every book I ever read on China.

Oh yeah, Plato's philosophy didn't help Greece a lot, now did it? As I recall from AP European History, Greece was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire until the 19th centruy.

TAG
Monday, May 20, 2002 at 18:38:28 (PDT)

Socrates,

Can I translate the dialogue between you and gzus into Ancient Greek and give credit to Plato? This will be a marvelous discovery in the Classics.

Let's put this way, scholars unearthed a new manuscript of Plato's called Gzus which was detached from other Platonic dialogues because it was too "occult" - why? Socrates actually heard of China and was able to forsee future events and significant people. LOL...hehehe
WOW!
Monday, May 20, 2002 at 13:57:12 (PDT)

I think the Chinese as a whole are not a good looking bunch, and what is the reason behind all of this?

Simple. Chinese have not been selected for looks over the generations as much as other qualities. With arranged marriages, almost no cheating, very little competition for mates compared to the west, areas where looks matter a lot, the pretty boys didn't make that many babies. Instead, the rich & powerful dudes made a disproportionate number of the children. What is the main requisite for getting rich & powerful? (Not looks, but intellect) - gzus

What you said is true to a certain extent. And this is still true today. The Chinese overall as a group don't emphasize beauty at all but put wealth on individuals with great importance for selection of mates. Unfortunately, many of the successful Chinese of the past and present aren't attractive.

But I do also have to say that arranged marriages, marriages with cousins, and marriages with your own dialectal group which are widely practiced by the Chinese produce these unattractive offsprings. Why? The genes of the man and the women are too related.

Southern Chinese
Monday, May 20, 2002 at 13:47:29 (PDT)

gzus in NYC,

Having a philosophy degree, I can tell you the premise of your statement is incorrect about Plato and modern philosophy. The breaktrough in critical philosophy occurred with Kant with the statement "A concept of a horse is not a horse." Followed by Wager and Neitczhe of their age.

I improved my classical Chinese skills just so I could read Lao-zi, Zhuan-zi, Meng-zi, Suen-zi Bing Fa in native text as I could read the modern western minds.

I can basically find for every great western school of thought a parallel school in Asia that stated the same concept and probably a few hundred years before western counterpart.

China did not fall behind by accident. Nor is it recent rise an accident.

But that if you only believe in continuous dependent events, that Socratic thinking instilled on us. Or do you subscribe to Neitzsche debasement of Socratic thinking. If you subscribe to Neitzche philosophy, might I suggest Zhuan-zi as future reading.

am I to be your Zarathrustra?

ha-zus you're still a neophyte in philosophy as well as all other acedemic areas you brought to discussion.

"OS of society" what a friggin' joke. What degree of language is the society's OS based on?
AC Dropout
Monday, May 20, 2002 at 11:38:50 (PDT)

To Socrates II

Confucianism is a set of moral values based on what this old geezer said eons ago. Basically whatever he says you gotta take his word for it that he's right. Same with Taoism & Buddhism.

As for Christian values, you keep putting words in my mouth. I never advocated Christianity or Christian values.
Btw, an example of a religion regularly updated is Judaism. Non-jews almost never look at the Talmud which is basically the Jewish operating system, cause they assume it's the similar to the bible. Also don't make the common mistake of confusing Judaism as being similar to Christianity. They are fundamentally different, their core working beliefs are 100% different. Judaism is nothing like Christianity.

"Again, I think a value system, .. .probably add several points to annual economic growth."

I'm surprised you disagree with that statement. Just look at the philosophical transition from a communist system to a socialist one. China's recent development would have been impossible without this change, and instead of 9% growth for 1980-2000, you would have 2-4% maybe.

Socrates:
A rather anachronistic observation don't you think? Despite your spirited rant against eastern philosophy China is catching up, and she'll do it

Lol, I want to see China catch up, but I don't allow myself the luxury of confusing daydreams with reality.
Making up ground when you're so far behind is easy; remember China's per capita GDP is 1/32 that of the US. Pulling up even or surpassing is something else entirely.
gzus in NYC
Monday, May 20, 2002 at 11:20:27 (PDT)

I hate to say this AC, but I don't see China getting Mongolia back, especially with Russian troops permanently stationed there. Taiwan will likely be drawn back into China's fold within decades, but hypothetically, if they chose to declare independence now, China will have no leverage, no recourse whatsoever. Quite frankly, China v. US right now in 2002 would just be a repeat of US v. Iraq, except China has more targets.

As for China's only real means of leverage- ICBMs, the US can take them out easily, very likely with just conventional means, and it might be the first thing the US does in a China v. Taiwan match.

As for weaponry, just cause u got a copy doesn't mean you can duplicate it. Reverse engineering is difficult, and this difficulty can increase exponentially with every added layer of complexity. On top of that, the industrial/technological base has to exist to take advantage of any knowledge gleaned.

For example, duplicating a F-16 just cause u got one is not easy. In fact, China tried this! They got export model F-16s from Pakistan, and they and the Pakistanis tried to copy it, and for the most part failed to duplicate even this relatively low tech export model.

gzus in NYC
Monday, May 20, 2002 at 10:54:50 (PDT)

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS