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 )

Will China stay united...?

This question reminds me of a famous quote from the timeless Chinese classic "Hong Lou Meng"...a novel that talks about the ups and downs of a wealthy...powerful family as well as its collapse. The quote mostly talked about how a family so big and powerful is hard or almost impossible to break by forces from the outside...
Corruption from within is the only way that can lead to its fall.

That idea also applies in the case of China.
Larri Kong, a Woman
Wednesday, May 29, 2002 at 22:57:39 (PDT)

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

The article itself seems to argue that the ROC has many comparable parallels to the former U.S.S.R. No matter what the choice that one may choose to defend, it is certain that neither can ultimately become reality.

The Soviet Republic going 'kaput' was in the works a long while back . While many argue that it would have stayed afloat even longer, we now have the benefit of seeing that this simply is not reality. The primary reason why the Soviet Union fell apart was because of Tolstoy's reason for the disentegration of Napoleon's army in War and Peace: in other words, the people of the Soviet Union no longer willed the continued invisible war which made little sense and which was destroying their livelihoods.

There are many nationalities, dialects, minorities in China, and there has been for quite some time. Despite the fact that this has been a recipe for rebellion and civil war in the past, the ruler of China has always sought to make the whole of the empire his own. Will China ever have a Mikhail Gorbachev to deliver her territories independence piece by piece? It is difficult to tell.

Will China EVER become united like the U.S.? Who knows? Who can pretend that they know and give good reasons for it; the kind of reasons that inspire ongoing discussion and debate? In any case, I do not find the same enthusiasm in prematurely concluding the ongoing sagas which these forum writers shamelessly press us to indulge in. Please don't believe that I hold you in contempt dear goldsea.com :) I sincerely believe that the question you posed in this article is one worthy of debate and discussion and would like to draw discussion back to it. I don't know about the rest of you, but I love to argue when it's an intellectual exercise.

Which brings me to the 'gzus', 'gee-zus', JESUS matter (still a christian at heart despite 'its' supposed pro-judaic beliefs)? It is apparent that 'it' has a taste for the extremely exaggerated, the painfully misinterpreted, the absurdly irrational, the terribly ill-conceived, and the unmanly art of self-contradiction. Let me put the final stake in the cross of this 'atheist', 'nihilist', 'communist' and 'jew'.

Firstly, it is useless to debate when you won't refute your points and leave gaping holes in your argument. Gzus has been finding much opposition in this forum-well-founded opposition mind you-and has little to show for it other than the piteous whining of "I've had enough of explaining this". Although 'it' really doesn't deserve it, I must implore all of you on Gzus' behalf to show some pity for 'it' being so stupid in expression due to the restrictions on 'its' mental faculties, most noticeably the faculty of reason. Apparently gzus is used to supplying half-baked answers and rambling on ceaselessly like a madman as a living. Don't keep pressing for answers that 'it' isn't capable of giving.

Like all narcissists 'it' can not admit to being the fool. So we must throw the mirror away and give the best reply we can to such complete and utter ignorance, our silence. All of the articles vs. gzus are accurate and destructive accounts. Just don't blame gzus if you don't get a straight satisfactory defense of 'its' argument, remember: 'it' isn't capable of doing so, and never really had an argument to begin with. NY Homeboy couldn't put a finger on what sort of nugget he'd found in gzus's rants. This is because words simply failed him when he tried to describe his disgust upon finding a dark, nutty-brown nugget of horse-shit.

Let's refrain from giving gzus too much credit. After all, we can only vent our knowledge at 'it' so much before he collapses, folds and tears. I bet 'it' cries itself to sleep every night. The clown has had his day, let's leave 'it' alone and get on with more worthy topics. I for one have had enough of this tedious one-sided argument against 'it': this black jew of a chinaman-wannabe.

salome
Wednesday, May 29, 2002 at 22:41:33 (PDT)

I agree with Phil that gzus_in_NYC is a schmuck. Just by reading his previous posts regarding military technology, one gets the impression that this guy has gotten virtually all of his education from Tom Clancy novels, which were written by a slightly smarter fool... Nothing in this guy's posts indicate even a basic understanding of technology. However, one does get saturated with the incessant emotional/ideological/self-righteous rants that he regurgitated from the TC novels and your typical newspaper and wire service.

To "southern chinese",

you said:
>>...The Sassoons and Jardines were also responsible for the opium trade in China. Without them, HK would probably never have existed in the 1st place.<<

That's a funny and absurd conclusion.
First of all, it immediately raises the question of why didn't you mention that they were also responsible for doing great harm to the country through the Opium trade? That would seem much more logical than your far-fetched conclusion that "HK would probably never have existed in the 1st place." Secondly, your conclusion contradicts a basic fact. HK existed long before the Sassoons and Jardines arrived. So what did they do to benefit HK through the drug trade? Are you saying that the Opium trade was a good thing? what are you, a pot-smoker?

Finally, when you told another poster to dig up history books and read, you ought to have saved the condescending attitude and take your own advice to heart. Your knowledge of history is truly slanted.
positron
Wednesday, May 29, 2002 at 14:19:32 (PDT)

gzus in NYC,

"I suppose this came to me because it seems to suggest what I suspect; that evolution is accelerating in and around cities more than urban areas, and intelligence is selected for more than looks."

This statement is full of incorrect conclusions. Evolution is not accelerating because human are not reproducing at a younger age. What you are noticing is call societial progress. Societial progress is accelerating as we shorten the timeframe of disseminating and acting on information.

Intelligence has always been selected over looks. If you study an aspect of Dawinism called Sexual Selection. You will realise the female will always choose based on male cultural displays, instead of pure male physical displays.

If Sexual Selection worked only on physical traits instead of intellectual traits, the world would be full of models. Which it is not when you go out for a walk. Humans have been selecting on cultural display (which reflect brain development) for a long long time now.
AC Dropout
Wednesday, May 29, 2002 at 13:01:45 (PDT)

I thought u guys might like this:
In the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations, China is seen as having high potential for economic growth because its national average IQ/per-capita GDP ratio for comparable countries. Okay, we knew this, but lemme list some stats. The average IQ is taken from multiple tests set in each country/territory. East Asian countries scored the highest.

Hong Kong 107
Japan 105
Italy 102
UK 100
China 100
US 98
Argentina 96
Israel 96
Mexico 87
Iraq 87
India 81
Guatemala 79
Barbados 78
Nigeria 67
Eq. Guinea 59

Average IQ of nations around the world- 90.
Why China is lower than Japan? Are us inscrutable Chinese stupider than the Japanese? Well, not necessarily, researchers found that IQ also goes up when a country becomes richer- i.e. better nutrition and such can account for a 5 pt gap. Anyhow, our Hong Kong beats out Japan, no thanks to the foreigners there pulling down the average. Don't ask me how Israel is 96; maybe the Arab factor.

Phil,
Nice quotes, just substitute whatever group you are part of for Jews and voila, you've picked out some fantastic information. This is the great contrast to other religions, which are all universal love, which is wrong. Hamilton's Rule works beautifully, thanks. Listen to gzus and you'll get far. Btw, it is likely my posts will appear far less frequently from now on, so I've added an email address this time for those who have ideas to add.

gzus in NYC
toc1000@yahoo.com Wednesday, May 29, 2002 at 10:47:52 (PDT)

gzus in NYC,

"Basically, Confuciusm, Taoism, Buddhism are irrelevant. Just try exclusively practicing those philosophies in the US for example"

Why do you state the elementary as though it is something profound. Your sentence could easily read

Basically, Heirarchial Organization, Matrix Organization, Judism are irrelevant. Just try exclusively practicing those philosophies in the PRC for example...

No Duh, individuals either acclimate to the establish infracture or face a terrible life.

You're really inept. The quality of your argument is sub-par for a GED student.

AC Dropout
Wednesday, May 29, 2002 at 09:56:55 (PDT)

gzus in NYC,

"of them became fabulously rich and lived fairy tale lives"

If you let 20,000 individual move into a new place and give them freedom to operate. Someone is going to get rich. It is a fact of life and an elementary study of the property of large numbers.

Even I myself am a classic example of a immigrant who lived in a slum and reach "fairy tale" lifestyle. There were over 5000 people naturalized on the same day I was in the USA. Property of Large Numbers.
AC Dropout
Wednesday, May 29, 2002 at 09:49:38 (PDT)

Southern Chinese,

"Sassoons, Jardines and Rothschilds"

And where are they now? Also Rothschild didn't make it to China, you must be thinking of the Kadoorie. Like I said a small footnote in history. Very esoteric knowledge.

I was referring to WWII and Dr. Ho who saved a bunch of Jews out of sympathy and gave them visa to Shanghai. Those Jews lived in slums and were either absorbed into the greater Han culture or immigrated elsewhere.

AC Dropout
Wednesday, May 29, 2002 at 09:46:17 (PDT)

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS