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 )

NYhomeboy
as the human society gets increasingly complex that the individual must have increasingly self-centered, self-consciousness and individualistic beliefs, ...And further that the Judeo-Christian system best espouses this?

There you go, finally, someone's finally picked up one of my main points. By the way, you mention Judeo-Christian system. Those two value systems are not even comparable in my book. Judaism is a quantum leap ahead of Christianity on those points you mention.

NYhomeboy
There is a nugget of something in your postings, but I can’t exactly pinpoint it.

My posts are good, a lotta these guys just don't understand what I'm telling them is several levels above what they are used to. I don't blame them since I expect most not to do anything except take a casual glance at these posts.

NYhomeboy
“put-the-group-ahead-of-self” mentality

There is an equation that kills this age old question very elegantly with one shot: Hamilton's rule. Judaism basically has inadvertently ingrained Hamilton's rule over the eons, whereas all the other religions are for blind giving.

gzus in NYC
   Thursday, May 23, 2002 at 10:46:03 (PDT)
SoCal Asiam
Here in the US, I belong to a Chinese community where the younger generation
Yea, each generation from 1st to 3rd in the US seems to get taller, savvier, better looking by an order of magnitude.

The Asian Rock
You mean, sort of like the Ten Commandments and the Old Testament?"

Wrong. 100% wrong. The Talmud is the core of the Judaism. 95% of Jews I know laugh at the Old Testament cause they all know it's bunk. Rock, ur outta yer league here.

Phil
You say that non-Jews never look at the Talmud. Well, I have. Extensively.

Just because you have looked at it doesn't mean you understand its more important and finer points. In fact, it's clear you don't. 90% of the Talmud is gibberish, but within maybe 5% of the remaider you find wisdom that is not found in any other philosophy/religion. I can tell you most people who just read the Talmud will miss ALL the finer and most critical points.
gzus in NYC
   Thursday, May 23, 2002 at 10:35:18 (PDT)
gzus in NYC,

>Migs are not better than F-16s

What lala land of military science do you study (must be the crack your smoking). The migs are far superior war planes you fool. Why do you think the USA been changing the designs of the F-16 since day one.

The only fool is the Pres. Bush at the moment. Half the world is laughing at him. Thank God he steps down in 2 years.
AC Dropout
   Thursday, May 23, 2002 at 08:58:49 (PDT)
gzus in NYC,

You have no idea what PRC strategy is because you have not studied Chinese military actions. Or military strategy in general.

They are not planning to take over ROC. That is why 500 missles are aimed at the island.

If they are planning a take over, they would be spending their resources in upgrading their military. And lo and behold they are. Including their space program.

Taiwan has outdated US weapons. Their latest purchase will be 15 years behind by the time they get them on the island.

By the time the 7th Fleet got there, ROC would have sunk already. In the situation you are proposing. You think ROC buildings can withstand 500 missles. What are you insane (is that the crack talking). Half those building in Taipei aren't even built to code. Taiwan is the size of NJ. If lauched 500 missles into NJ you think cops would be around to do racial profiling.
AC Dropout
   Thursday, May 23, 2002 at 08:52:00 (PDT)

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS