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 )

Jing Cha,
I am impressed with your ability to flash your CREDENTIALS in order to boost your CREDIBILITY. HOWEVER, I am most impressed by your frequent use of CAPITALIZATION to EMPHASIZE your points.
BTW, are you a GEOPHYSICIST? I didn't get that since you only posted that TWICE in your last THREE posts (two of which you posted to me - nice 'comeback' on that last one).
Babbling BOY
   Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 22:15:52 (PDT)
Beware! This "JING CHA" is an ignorant anti-Chinese troll attempting to harass and ridicule others on this board. He's a black guy (as he once admitted), despite using a misleading name. It's funny how almost all of those who claim fervently that they have been to China, studied Chinese language, culture, and are "interested" in this and that are also the rudest, most racist, and most condescending and antagonistic towards the Chinese and China. I have personally met many of this type, so I'm pretty sure this is not a coincidence. But I wonder if there is an underlying pattern or motive driving this kind of behavior. Has anyone else noticed this?
positron
   Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 18:28:24 (PDT)
". AMERICA PRODUCES 70% of the world's humane services. America is not a manufacturer...it is a SERVICE. a service that WORKS."

This statement is full of crap! Many American manufacturers are moving their facilities overseas and this will in no doubt cause a segment of the American population to lose their jobs and productivity. What kind of service will America offer to world when it becomes stiffled with its own economic problems such as unemployment? You tell me!

Does America really give aid to other countries, is it significant? Perhaps transfering companies overseas is what you call aid. Better yet, is dropping greasy peanut butter sandwiches into thin stricken Afghanistan is what you call a humanitarian effort?

American companies made 1 mistake in the past when they were competing with the Japanese in the manufacturing sector during the 1980's and part of the 1990's. They should have established some facilities in Japan in order to balance the competition between the 2 countries. Instead, all of their facilities were based in the US which were eventually displaced by the Japanese. For example, if brands like Zenith, RCA, and General Motors were manufactured in Japan for the Asian Market which would then compete with Sony, Panasonic and Honda, these companies would have not suffered such losses which are still felt today. Instead, America became a stubborn tyrant wanting to oust the Japanese by only having domestic production which failed miserably.

Currently, many America companies are doing the opposite which is another mistake. Instead of having a strong domestic production combined with a strong overseas production, they're transfering most of their operations overseas. This will lead to a rise of unemployment and a decrease of innovation.

America's blunders
   Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 11:27:57 (PDT)
--------Hardware, No Software

I think you are ABSOLUTELY right in your claims.
I own a small but growing company that is based in Shang Hai that I inherited from my father (he is not dead just retired). I am preparing to go there for the rest of the year in order to direct it because I lost alot of money when I let a ShangHainese resident operate it. He had good credentials from Nanjing University but I had reason to believe he was incompetent so I Fired him.
I hired some Nigerian students I knew to help me and so far things are ok (not great). I am upset because I had to cut back on my profits. When I took over my father's buisness in 99 I was making $150K a year and now Im down to $90K. Buisness is not my specialty but I enjoy playing around with it. Im looking into investing into Shandong textiles. Do you have suggestions?
JING CHA
   Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 10:33:54 (PDT)
-positron

I know who I am. I know what you are.
Your a fool and a liar.
Your tech specs are absolutely UNTRUE considering the fact that the thrust vectoring is a concept that was started in 1968 by the US Military when they built a VTOL fighter experimental craft.
You call me a RACIST against Chinese but I am engaged to be married to a Shand Dong-nese woman who is a student in the school I study at and is far more beutiful than yo mama could ever be!
I have more knowledge about the subject matter and more cash to finance my education than you could imagine. In 21 Years of life Ive done more than you have with your POORLY thought out arguments and smokescreening. if you wanna lie about technology dont do it here.
cut your bulls***
JING CHA
   Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 10:28:39 (PDT)
JING CHA,

I don't disagree that USA is dependent on the service sector. But to think that this economic model the USA uses can weather all economic situation is also incorrect. We can even make cloth in this country. In relatively peaceful time this type of imbalance economy is okay. But if the current leadership has it their way and keep pushing the USA to polarize the world, I don't think the economic situation in USA is sustainable.

As for your focus on the amount of your salary to allow you to do whatever you want. You will realize very quickly your employees in China will not respond to that. And the factory down the street will out compete you due to lack of employee satisfaction.

As for China civil issues on STD and poverty. Same thing happens here in the USA. Ever been to the poor States in the USA. Go to a trailer park community and you will see the same problems in USA as you see in China.

Acutally I spoke to memebers of Falun Dafa here in the USA. They are a bunch of cult members. They definitely do more harm to their members than good in my opinion.

I think you are just looking at the negatives which do not impact on the progress China is making. STD and prostitution exist the world over. For the right amount of money you can find prostitutes or sex industry worker in the USA with degrees from Harvard, Stanford, etc. It is not that uncommon in the States.

There are always more males born in a population naturally. Males have higher chance of dying year in life. Not to say the one child law does not effect the natural balance, but China's goal is to have control population shrinkage you understand.

You sound more like a spoiled child ranting with your benefit of recieving a western education, instead of someone who can actually become a productive leader and make a difference in China.

I'm surprised you considered yourself a scientist. With statements like "I am 100% certain that pollution there is affecting the future generations." How in the world can you be certain you can provide an unbaised study for you clients.
AC Dropout
   Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 10:08:06 (PDT)

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS