What if the PRC had fallen to the 1989 Tienanmen Square protests?

[BrainGlutton]

And assume it had fallen more-or-less peacefully, like the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries, and in its place were established some kind of multiparty democracy.

Really posing a question I asked in this thread: Would China be richer or poorer now than it is in our timeline? What are the economic effects, here, of democracy vs. not-democracy?

[Commissar]

Well, let's see: a representative democracy with over 1 billion citizens and dozens of assorted ethnic, cultural, and linguistic groups... The only frame of reference here is India.

So, how has representative democracy worked out for India? I suppose it hasn't been a complete disaster... But it does have the multiple simmering civil wars, the abject inability to do anything about catastrophic wealth disparities, a crumbling infrastructure, a looming population crisis, and a rate of economic growth that generally lags behind that of China.

So there you have your answer. Giving up socialism and government control of the economy probably wouldn't have killed China, but it would have made it just another generic third-world nation. No matter how you look at it, it appears that the Chinese leadership has wisely chosen to follow the best course of action for its people. Overall, the failure of the uprising was very much a positive development for China, and thus for the world at large.

[Bryan Ekers]

At a guess, the centralized government would have to lose a great deal of power, transferring it to the various provinces, among which will remain stark distinctions of wealth and development in addition to language and culture. I could even imagine a few of those provinces seeking even greater autonomy, if not downright independence.

So if the best case outcome is the fragile democracy of India, I'd guess the worst might be the crumbling, violent, corrupt post-USSR Russia.

[coremelt]

It's also worth nothing that the "Four Asian Tigers" the countries in Asia that grew the most from the 1960's to the 1990's were all various flavors of Autocracy during their most successful and rapid growth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Asian_Tigers

Singapore: Single party autocracy since independence and still is to this day.

Taiwan: Single party autocracy from 1950-1990's

Hong Kong: Ruled by an appointed Governor, no representation of local citizens until hand over to China

South Korea: military dictatorship from 1960's to 1980's

Of course that's not to say that rar-rar autocracy is great, it's just worked better in asian cultures then democracy has. And these countries were never like Burma or Indonesia during Soeharto with a real climate of fear, they were always "mild mannered dictatorships" that were careful to leave people alone to get rich as long as they stayed out of politics.

[straight man]

Careful, though —they "work better" in an economic sense, but with substantial costs in terms of rights, freedoms, etc. (And those costs aren't evenly distributed —some people are fine, others are not.) The exception is Hong Kong, which I gather really was pretty mild-mannered —but it's worth pointing out that its last governor is on record regretting not transitioning to democracy. Also, if I may be a bit nitpicky, South Korea's super-fast growth took place both before and after its transition to democracy; it's not a brilliant example in that regard.

I'm also not sure the use of India as a predictor is entirely fair. India has such a vastly different economy, culture, geography, resources... and perhaps most importantly, its overwhelming ethnic problems are larger than China's arguably in large part because its ethnic situation was so much more tenuous to start with!

ETA: There's also a chicken-egg problem: a fast-growing economy can certainly keep a dictatorship going longer than a slow economy, but the correlation in the opposite direction is hard to demonstrate. Also, Japan...?

[coremelt]

Originally Posted by straight man

Careful, though —they "work better" in an economic sense, but with substantial costs in terms of rights, freedoms, etc.Also, Japan...?

The majority of people in Singapore don't care that they aren't really free. If they do care it's relatively easy for them to immigrate somewhere else. Low unemployment, and strong growth are more important to them than absolute freedom of speech.

And as far Japan, in theory it was a democracy but in practise:
" the Liberal Democratic Party (Jiyu-Minshuto; LDP) was formed in November 1955. This party continuously held power from 1955 through 1993"

[even sven]

I think a free China would grow more slowly, but develop a more robust foundation.

China has yet to face its first real test, and its no more possible to declare it an unbridled success than it would be to look at America in 1798 and decide it found its place in the world. Some big things are going to need to be negotiated. The biggest question is, "Can the CCP weather an economic slowdown?" The unofficial deal in 1989 was "Don't question our rule, and we will make you rich." Not a great foundation unless you are sure you can offer double digit growth forever.

When an economic slowdown occurs, will the Chinese people have the national discipline to endure some belt tightening (like Japan did), or will they fall into the much more historically Chinese narrative of uniting in good times and falling apart into warring factions when things get tough?

We also have no seen the long-term effects of the 2008 lending binge, the deep shadiness buried n the State owned Enterprises and government controlled utterly non-transparent banking sector, and the housing bubble. A lot has been built, but its way too early to declare it real sustainable growth. People havn't had to show their returns yet.

I think democracy will come sooner than later. But I don't see an easy transition.

[coremelt]

Originally Posted by even sven

The biggest question is, "Can the CCP weather an economic slowdown?" The unofficial deal in 1989 was "Don't question our rule, and we will make you rich." Not a great foundation unless you are sure you can offer double digit growth forever.

Where do you get this idea from that China will fall to pieces if it can't maintain 10 percent growth? No one thinks it will, the CCP is aiming for 7-9 percent growth over the next five years, of course they expect growth to slow.

[even sven]

And when all of my students, who are eagerly taking driving lessons (saying you spent the weekend at driving school is the hip status symbol for rural youth..akin to saying you spent the weekend snowboarding or visiting NYC), realize that a car is not realistically in the future of a rural primary school teacher, how content are they going to be with this new version of the social contract? They are happy to have gone from foot to bicycle to motped to electric scooter, for sure. But they don't expect it to stop there.They feel they have been promised cars. Can these kids, who are graduating into jobs that make around 2000 RMB a month, get cars in the next 5 years? 10?

People are expecting a three bedroom flat, a vacation to Hainan, and a wedding in a luxury hotel. If they start feeling like they are not moving towards that- or worse that the will only ever get a one-bedroom company flat, vacation to the nearest ancient town, and a wedding at a cheap dishes restaurant- they are going to start to question what the hell they are in it for. It's not that these things are inherently bad- they'd be luxuries a generation ago- but people have been sold a story that involves more.

[coremelt]

Originally Posted by even sven

Can these kids, who are graduating into jobs that make around 2000 RMB a month, get cars in the next 5 years? 10?

People are expecting a three bedroom flat, a vacation to Hainan, and a wedding in a luxury hotel.

Once again sven your posts are long on dramatic rhetoric but lacking any real facts. Yes they can afford a car, local chinese cars cost as little as 23,000 RMB. They get a 5 year loan and they can buy one right now.

http://www.chinacartimes.com/2007/10...pest-car-ever/

And who has promised rural teachers these luxury lifestyles? Not the CCP, it's 5 year plans are public knowledge. If you mean they're shown unobtainable lifestyles by advertising? Well yes, but that hasn't made rural language teachers rise up and overthrow the government in the west has it?

None which is the point of this thread.

[even sven]

They are long on the wisdom earned by spending approximately 12,000 hours in dialogue with several hundred Chinese college Freshmen and Sophomores in a small inland industrial city (who,of course, do not represent all of China but do represent the next generation of the massive rural-aspiring-to-middle-class population) on topics such as "what are your hopes for the future" and "what things in life are important to you."

Unless you are going to deny that the rural and small city Chinese populace expects a steadily rising standard of living until it reaches East Coast standards, don't pester me to look up surveys that state the obvious.

Sheesh, why am I arguing with someone who has faith in 5 year plans that nobody, not even the guys who wrote them, puts much credence in? Oh, but the previous plans met their goals? Think about it. Everyone else in China has learned how to read between the lines. From party hacks to barefoot peasants, everyone has developed the ability to analyze information on China in a more sophisticated way than you. Even my assigned watcher couldn't keep a straight face in the eye of some of this stuff, and he was a True Believer.

Anyway, my students talked about being disillusioned with the government and seeking democracy pretty often- usully in secret whispers during office hours, but sometimes with real anger and tear openly in the classroom Make of that what you will.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Civl War, between ethnic factions.

[AK84]

Originally Posted by even sven

They are long on the wisdom earned by spending approximately 12,000 hours in dialogue with several hundred Chinese college Freshmen and Sophomores in a small inland industrial city (who,of course, do not represent all of China but do represent the next generation of the massive rural-aspiring-to-middle-class population) on topics such as "what are your hopes for the future" and "what things in life are important to you."

Yeah, when I was in University I aspired to garage of supercars, a house in Malibu, Maldievs and Monaco, a supermodel wife with big knockers and to travel all the time to exotic locales.

I don't think University Students are really reprentative of much.

If you are saying that Chinese will stay at peace as long as there is prosperity, then yes I can agree with you. If you say that when standard of living goes down the CCP is in trouble is true. And that has been true since the times of Babylon.

WHen living standards go down, you have instability and discontent which often boils over to conflict. The CCP has been aware of that, just look at Chinese history.

Finally and this is the hardest thing to make westeners understand; most people don't give a f;lying toss about democracy. They care if the utilities work, the roads get fixed, the schools are good, food is available, it safe to go outside etc etc.A fact the United States forgot when it had its little Iraq adventure.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by straight man

I'm also not sure the use of India as a predictor is entirely fair. India has such a vastly different economy, culture, geography, resources... and perhaps most importantly, its overwhelming ethnic problems are larger than China's arguably in large part because its ethnic situation was so much more tenuous to start with!

They're about the same size, but, nevertheless, China has the history of a country. India has the history of a continent -- a continent rather like Europe, all bound together by some shared cultural and religious ties, but, still, a multiplicity of national and local cultures and languages.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by coremelt

And as far Japan, in theory it was a democracy but in practise:
" the Liberal Democratic Party (Jiyu-Minshuto; LDP) was formed in November 1955. This party continuously held power from 1955 through 1993"

Still rather more of a democracy than Mexico was under the PRI, I should think. The lower level of public corruption makes all the difference.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by even sven

I think a free China would grow more slowly, but develop a more robust foundation.

China has yet to face its first real test, and its no more possible to declare it an unbridled success than it would be to look at America in 1798 and decide it found its place in the world.

No, the present dynasty has yet to face its first real test. China found its place in the world before the Greeks had heard of Rome.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor

Civl War, between ethnic factions.

What ethnic factions? China is 91% Han. That's the core, geographically as well as culturally, and the minority peoples are mostly all around the borders. You can't make a civil war out of that, not one that affects the whole country. "Inner China" with non-Han "Outer China" shorn away would still be China. I once had a Chinese roommate (a democracy activist who had to leave the country after Tienanmen Square -- I was in law school, he was in pharmacy school at the same campus) who was very willing Tibet and Xinjiang and such should secede if they like, and leave a "smaller, free China."

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by AK84

Finally and this is the hardest thing to make westeners understand; most people don't give a f;lying toss about democracy. They care if the utilities work, the roads get fixed, the schools are good, food is available, it safe to go outside etc etc.A fact the United States forgot when it had its little Iraq adventure.

Well, that's what this thread is about -- not whether or how much the Chinese want democracy, but whether getting it back in 1989 or so would mean that, today, the utilities would work more reliably or less reliably, the roads would be in good repair, good schools and food would be available, etc., all in comparison to the PRC today.

[Commissar]

Originally Posted by even sven

China has yet to face its first real test, and its no more possible to declare it an unbridled success than it would be to look at America in 1798 and decide it found its place in the world. Some big things are going to need to be negotiated. The biggest question is, "Can the CCP weather an economic slowdown?" The unofficial deal in 1989 was "Don't question our rule, and we will make you rich." Not a great foundation unless you are sure you can offer double digit growth forever.

When an economic slowdown occurs, will the Chinese people have the national discipline to endure some belt tightening (like Japan did), or will they fall into the much more historically Chinese narrative of uniting in good times and falling apart into warring factions when things get tough?

We also have no seen the long-term effects of the 2008 lending binge, the deep shadiness buried n the State owned Enterprises and government controlled utterly non-transparent banking sector, and the housing bubble. A lot has been built, but its way too early to declare it real sustainable growth. People havn't had to show their returns yet.

Frankly, I find your characterization of the Chinese people to be somewhat insulting and condescending. The Chinese aren't Martians, nor are they emotionally-fragile retards with entitlement issues. When the US economy got flushed down the toilet, I didn't pick up a gun, form a roving band of marauders with my neighbors, and start fighting street battles with the cops. Rather, I kept on going with my life while hoping that things will improve. I fail to see why the Chinese should be any different.

Also, what is this nonsense about the PRC simply riding along with the good times? Look, I'm a great supporter of the ruling Party, but even I won't argue that its rule has been all smiles and sunshine. There have been some mistakes, and some suffering as a result of said mistakes. The Chinese people stuck it out, and in the end their loyalty and dedication paid off. Now they're reaping the rewards of their patience. What makes you think that they have consequently lost the ability to deal with less-than-stellar domestic situations, if they happen to arise once again?

[China Guy]

I tend to agree with dissident astrophysicist Fang Lizhi (who snuck into the US Embassy in 1989) that China is never that far from civil war. I think that China would eventually devolve into some kind of warlord state and fragment. When you look at the tip of the iceberg of serious corruption that gets uncovered and admitted by the government, it looks pretty bad. Probably the most recent case was the downfall of the Chongqing government leadersabout 18 months ago.

Back in 1989, as posited by the OP, I think chinese economic growth would have been far far slower, and the likelihood of a federation of warlords or outright breaking up of the country would have been high.

China needs to grow. How much no one knows. Now 10% is the popular meme. When I was in investment banking in the 1990's it was 8%. It's a number pulled out of someone's ass and repeated until "true." Fact is that no one knows. But to EvenSven's point is valid - the government pact with the people is "we will let you get rich and you don't question our right to rule."

[China Guy]

Originally Posted by Commissar

Also, what is this nonsense about the PRC simply riding along with the good times? Look, I'm a great supporter of the ruling Party, but even I won't argue that its rule has been all smiles and sunshine. There have been some mistakes, and some suffering as a result of said mistakes. The Chinese people stuck it out, and in the end their loyalty and dedication paid off. Now they're reaping the rewards of their patience. What makes you think that they have consequently lost the ability to deal with less-than-stellar domestic situations, if they happen to arise once again?

Commissar, with all due respect, you've never even been to China. I spent 3 years in the Chinese countryside before 1989 happened. Back then, it might have been true that Chinese peasants, which make up the vast majority of the population, would have just soldiered on. At this point in time, the genie is out of the bottle and the masses want their piece of the pie. There is no loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party these days, and those that remember the bad old days before the revolution are a small percentage of the population and dying off.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by China Guy

I tend to agree with dissident astrophysicist Fang Lizhi (who snuck into the US Embassy in 1989) that China is never that far from civil war. I think that China would eventually devolve into some kind of warlord state and fragment.

OK, you're ruling out the possibility of Tienanmen Square leading to a peaceful transition to democracy, and that's a defensible position. But, for purposes of this thread, please swallow the hypothetical: If it had achieved what the protesters wanted, what would be the practical results on the ground?

(What transition to democracy now would achieve is a related but different question.)

[cckerberos]

Originally Posted by coremelt

And as far Japan, in theory it was a democracy but in practise:
" the Liberal Democratic Party (Jiyu-Minshuto; LDP) was formed in November 1955. This party continuously held power from 1955 through 1993"

So? How does that make Japan a non-democratic state?

[AK84]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

OK, you're ruling out the possibility of Tienanmen Square leading to a peaceful transition to democracy, and that's a defensible position. But, for purposes of this thread, please swallow the hypothetical: If it had achieved what the protesters wanted, what would be the practical results on the ground?

(What transition to democracy now would achieve is a related but different question.)

Breakup of China or at least huge autonomy to the peripheral regions.

ANd no econmic growth.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by AK84

Breakup of China or at least huge autonomy to the peripheral regions.

ANd no econmic growth.

Why no economic growth? Does it all depend on a centralized and at-least-dirigiste national state?

[China Guy]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

OK, you're ruling out the possibility of Tienanmen Square leading to a peaceful transition to democracy, and that's a defensible position. But, for purposes of this thread, please swallow the hypothetical: If it had achieved what the protesters wanted, what would be the practical results on the ground?

I answered this question. I think economic progress would have stagnated and that the country would have devolved into warlord type factions and probably splintered.

Look at what happened between 1966-76, the so-called 10 years of the cultural revolution. The economy was probably only double that size in 1989.

[even sven]

Originally Posted by Commissar

Frankly, I find your characterization of the Chinese people to be somewhat insulting and condescending. The Chinese aren't Martians, nor are they emotionally-fragile retards with entitlement issues. When the US economy got flushed down the toilet, I didn't pick up a gun, form a roving band of marauders with my neighbors, and start fighting street battles with the cops. Rather, I kept on going with my life while hoping that things will improve. I fail to see why the Chinese should be any different.

Also, what is this nonsense about the PRC simply riding along with the good times? Look, I'm a great supporter of the ruling Party, but even I won't argue that its rule has been all smiles and sunshine. There have been some mistakes, and some suffering as a result of said mistakes. The Chinese people stuck it out, and in the end their loyalty and dedication paid off. Now they're reaping the rewards of their patience. What makes you think that they have consequently lost the ability to deal with less-than-stellar domestic situations, if they happen to arise once again?

Ha! The Chinese people are loyal and dedicated to the party in the way you are loyal and dedicated to your asshole abusive uncle who cuts you a nice check on your birthday. You arn't going to tell him off over Thanksgiving dinner, but when he finally runs himself into the ground with hookers and blow, you probably arn't going to visit him in rehab.

There is no almost no emotional affection for the party. Modern party membership is basically the equivelent of joining the freemasons- it is a pricy social club good for making business contracts. The bullshit "political meetings" students and workers have to sit through is a joke. Nobody takes it seriosly. The Party is a means to an end, tolerated by the Chinese pople only as long as it is serving their purposes.

And don't forget, it was in the 1960s that people were eating the corpses of their dead children to stay alive. In the 1970s, college kids were fighting each other in random impromptu armies in the street and the government had basically collapsed. This is not ancient history- this is people's parent's stories. The wounds are healing, but the idea that people are going to have much trust in the goodwill and generousity of the party is laughable.

Te US does not rise up during economic setbacks because our national myth is intact. We basically believe somthing like "In 1776 America gained independence and started a new expeeriment in democracy. Their bravery and dedication to freedom gave everyone a single familt home and a car. And we saved Europe from Nazis." Most Americans have to some degree internalized a version of this. In periods where our national myth was threatened- slavery, the great depression, Vietam- we did indeed experience widespread social upheaval. Don't forget, we has our own civil war.

China's national myth is a bit of a mess. There is 5,000 years of history, but a generation ago China's history was considerd a shameful story of feudalism. There is China's political continuity, except that periods of factional warfare outnumber periods of peace and prosperity...and wern't the last imperial leaders, uh, not Chinese? Hmmm. Chairman Mao has been a useable myth, but one that has some obvious baggage. WWII and fighting the Japanese is a pretty big winner, and everyone has fun manipulating anti-Japanese sentiment. But whn you come down to it, China was in a pretty messy civil war then, too. Deng Xiaoping and economic reform is a good bet, except it requires facing up to the fact that basically everything the party was founded on is wrong...

In the end, China's sense of national identity- the thing that unites the Chnese people towards a common purpose- is relatively weak. This makes it hard for a nation to weather shocks.

Don't get too caught up on the "everyone is Han" thing, ether. Han ethnic identity is a political creation of the (surprise!) Han dynasty. A quick trip to Chengdu, Harbin and Guangzhou will reveal these are not people who share a common language, genetic stock, political history (beyond being occassionally annexed into the same empire for a bit before falling apart), customs or reallyany of the things that mark a shared identity. A sense of "Han"-ness does exist in a very real way, but it is kind of a forced fit. Kind of like how being "European" or part of the "Western tradition" or even "former members of the Roman empire and now the EU" doesn't really mean much in practical terms when it comes to uniting Belguim.

[even sven]

AK, those are things you wantedin university. Unless you were spectacularly immature, what you actually expectedwas probably more along the lines of: a sit-down job, a new compact car every 7 years, to own some kind of property, two weeks of vacation, health insurance, and a spouse of approximately the same social class as yourself. This is a sort of minimum that college educated Americans expect. Almost all can basically achieve it, and those that don't usually have some other priorities. It works.

If college educated Americans were ending up in flophouses, working the mines, riding the bus to work and seeking relief from aging whores, damn straight we would see some social unrest. Likewise if people genuinely thought they were going to get the things you mentioned and got what I listed instead, we would indeed see some free floating social anger

[Commissar]

Originally Posted by even sven

If college educated Americans were ending up in flophouses, working the mines, riding the bus to work and seeking relief from aging whores, damn straight we would see some social unrest.

Perhaps, but don't you think you're moving the goalposts just a bit here? Seems to me that there is a slight difference between being forced to work in the mines for sustenance, on the one hand, and not being to upgrade your motor-scooter to a car as quickly as you would like, on the other. Once again, I'm not buying the doom-and-gloom predictions. Chinese people are human beings, and I fully expect them to react to everyday disappointments in normal human fashion. Taking up arms and killing people because you're not able to buy as much crap as you would like to does not seem like a rational human response to me. It doesn't matter whether or not the average Chinese person feels loyalty towards the Party, it still takes a bit more than that to start a revolution.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by even sven

If college educated Americans were ending up in flophouses, working the mines, riding the bus to work and seeking relief from aging whores, damn straight we would see some social unrest.

Is that happening to college-educated Chinese now?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Commissar

Taking up arms and killing people because you're not able to buy as much crap as you would like to does not seem like a rational human response to me.

What else is any Communist revolution about?!

[coremelt]

Originally Posted by even sven

If college educated Americans were ending up in flophouses, working the mines, riding the bus to work and seeking relief from aging whores, damn straight we would see some social unrest

College educated americans are leaving in their parents basements, working at McDonald's, riding the bus to work and seeking relief from camwhores and websites. But are they taking up arms against the US government?

Best case scenario if there was a peaceful transition to democracy in1989 is economic growth being substantially less than it was and China being 5-10 years behind it's current state, with the outer border areas being allowed to peacefully secede and core Han China left. Why? Transitions and new governments make foreign investors nervous, a lot of money would pull put and wait 5 years to see if the new government would survive at first. If the split away of border areas wasn't peaceful, or there was rapid changes of government and factional political infighting then it would be much worse.

Look Sven, I'm sure there are plenty of 19-21 year old university students that want democracy at any cost but to make out that they are the majority of China is just wrong. When they get older and own a business or have gotten to some middle point in the hierarchy they have a vested interest in keeping the current system. That inertia and the "better the devil you know" is what keeps most people content even in hard times.

The current generation have also seen what happened after Russia's attempt to instantly transition to democracy.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Commissar

Well, let's see: a representative democracy with over 1 billion citizens and dozens of assorted ethnic, cultural, and linguistic groups... The only frame of reference here is India.

So, how has representative democracy worked out for India? I suppose it hasn't been a complete disaster... But it does have the multiple simmering civil wars, the abject inability to do anything about catastrophic wealth disparities, a crumbling infrastructure, a looming population crisis, and a rate of economic growth that generally lags behind that of China.

So there you have your answer. Giving up socialism and government control of the economy probably wouldn't have killed China, but it would have made it just another generic third-world nation. No matter how you look at it, it appears that the Chinese leadership has wisely chosen to follow the best course of action for its people. Overall, the failure of the uprising was very much a positive development for China, and thus for the world at large.

China has a stronger ethnic cohesion, and a stronger work ethic than India.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

China has a stronger ethnic cohesion, and a stronger work ethic than India.

What makes you think China has a stronger work ethic?

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

What makes you think China has a stronger work ethic?

Confucianism and all that. The Chinese are quite industrious and dominate many SE Asian economies.

[coremelt]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

Confucianism and all that. The Chinese are quite industrious and dominate many SE Asian economies.

Having done business in both India and China and having travelled widely in SE Asia there is truth to this. In fact in Malaysia and many other countries there is problems because Chinese immigrants so dominate local businesses they have (usually futilely) passed laws favoring Malay owned businesses.

There has also been anti-chinese riots in both Malaysia and Indonesia due to the immigrants perceived dominance of business and trade.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4308241.stm

Thai, Indonesian and Malay culture just doesn't put the same emphasis on work ethic and entrepreneurship.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

Confucianism and all that. The Chinese are quite industrious and dominate many SE Asian economies.

Confucianism? Wasn't Communism supposed to uproot all of that?

[even sven]

You don't get it. The potential to take to the streets is not because of minor economic woe. People take to the streets- as they always have- because they have a shitty government.

The CCP is objectively shitty. It is utterly Stalinist is structure. It perpetuates a corrupt, entrenched elite. It expresses its weakness and insecurity through paranoia and control. It fails to provide basic services like safe drinking water, even bare bones worker and consumer protection, universal access to quality schooling, police and fire protection...all the things modern governments are at least supposed to try at. It can't project power in its own border regions. It is, by nearly every level, a failure at governing beyind a few select East Coast cities.

But, they got something good with the economy. And that will buy you a lot of time.That will keep people very quiet and still as long as you keep delivering the goods.

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Confucianism? Wasn't Communism supposed to uproot all of that?

You missed the communique. For the last three years or so Confucious is cool again. He's been rebranded from a backwards, misogynist, supersticious feudalist into a CCP approved hero showing how the Party is the logical continuation of 5,000 years of Chinese Glory (TM) and is totally hip to what it has branded as Traditional Chinese Values which are now OK and that the Party has Always loved and supported harmoniously. Thousands of Confucious statues have been raised at universities and in cities and China's soft diplomacy institution is the Confucious Institute...which has a nicer ring than "the Commie Club" overseas.

[coremelt]

Originally Posted by even sven

You don't get it. The potential to take to the streets is not because of minor economic woe. People take to the streets- as they always have- because they have a shitty government.
The CCP is objectively shitty.

Your take on China is wildly out of wack with reality. China's government is on average no more or less shitty on each of those things than the free democratic governments of India, Thailand, The Philippines or Indonesia. Each of those countries has long running active insurgencies, rampant corruption, lack of universal safe water and poor records for worker safety. But they are all democracies.

However China is doing vastly better than those countries at economic growth so overall I give them a "less shitty than the governments of India, Thailand, Philippines or Indonesia" rating.

And your idea that the wealth is only benefiting the elite in Shanghai and Beijing is also wildly inaccurate. There has been rapid development and rises of median incomes in all coastal cities and river valleys which is where 83% percent of the population lives.
Every western country has followed the same model of development along coasts and navigable rivers, its simple fucking logistics, how can they develop the rural areas with no fucking transport first?

Lastly China's wealth distribution is more evenly distributed through the middle classes than the US, source is creduit suisse global wealth data book, see here:
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...Wealth%209.jpg

But I expect you'll ignore that just like you did in the other thread I posted it in.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by even sven

People are expecting a three bedroom flat, a vacation to Hainan, and a wedding in a luxury hotel.

Which implies that they are expecting wives. China needs women.

[coremelt]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

Which implies that they are expecting wives. China needs women.

Yes and those Chinese who are moderately successful and can't find Chinese wives will import them from the nearby less successful developing countries, like the Philippines, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and Indonesia. For women from poor villages in those countries a marriage to a moderately well off Chinese would be a huge improvement in lifestyle.

[Acsenray]

And to China massive importation of foreign wives/mothers will represent a significant factor influencing societal change. And there's always those who wont be able to attract foreign women.

[even sven]

Focus, coremelt. Nobody is claiming "China is the only country on the planet with problems," or "China has the absolutely shittiest government in the world." I've been to Thailand, India and the Philippines. They absolutely do have their own sets of problems. This has next to no relevance to China's internal political dynamics. The whole "Nuh-uh...there are democracies that are less than a perfect paradise" thing is a weak, weak, weak sound byte. There are much better arguments out there.

Also, you and I both know that an income distribution that ranges from basically nothing to solid middle income is planets different than an income distribution that ranges from high income to astronomical. Please, pick up some more sophisticated arguments. This is China Daily message board stuff. You can do better. When I talk about the geographical distribution of wealth, I am not talking about Qinghai villages. I am talking about the fact that Chinese people cannot move around their own country freely and have limited social mobility. You can't up and decide you hate living in Zunyi and move to Harbin to try your luck.

China is roughly like the US and Mexico all smashed together under one US-focused administration with the border kept intact and illegal immigrants still being illegal. You can't move to greener pastures without massive costs. You often can't give up the farm and go start a restaurant. You can't go back to college at 30. You can't decide to change careers and become a school teacher at 40. You can't make up for the failed exam, the unpaid bribe, the troublesome relative- if something screws your life, you are screwed and that is very likely just going to be it.

And this produces a lot of deep, seething, currently rather undirected rage. When, now and then, an unmarried jobless guy does something insane like stab school kids, the reaction is surprising. "Yes," people will say, "He must have been under a lot of pressure." People understand being under enough pressure, so hopelessly stuck, so socially irellevent, that you could snap.

What, exactly, are you basing your assessment of the undercurrents in the Chinese populace on? So far, I know you are really impressed with pictures of cranes. Got anything else? You know some expats in Shanghai? You can see China from your living room? You've been to Japan? I'm not an expert, by any means. But i do have some meaningful experience and I'm pretty widely read on Chinese history, culture and society. I know my view comes from a very deep view of a very small part of China. I fully expect others to have more to contribute, and that I can illuminate just one viewpoint of many valid viewpoints. I don't claim to have the whole truth or the one right way to look at things. There are a lot of people with China experience on this board. Taken together, you will find a variety of experiences and viewpoints that lead to a more sophisticated understanding of questions like this.

But I'm not sure why you feel the need to tell me what I know is true is not. Unless everyone was lying to me, what I'm talking about is there. It's not the one whole truth, but it is indeed a part of it.

[coremelt]

Originally Posted by even sven

Focus, coremelt. Nobody is claiming "China is the only country on the planet with problems," or "China has the absolutely shittiest government in the world."

Yes you are judging the Chinese government for failing to live up to the standards of some idealistic western democracy that doesn't exist. There is entrenched power elites in all the countries I mentioned, and a severe lack of social mobility, but despite that, revolutions of the peasants rising up are few and far between.

People resent the rich and complain about corrupt politicians in every single country I know and I'm sure you heard plenty of it. So what, that doesn't mean China is on the verge of collapse and turmoil, thats just standard run of the mill bitching that happens everywhere.

An no my impressions are not based on "pictures of cranes", for one thing I took those pictures myself on a 32 km boat cruise from Shanghai to check out the industrial heartland of China for myself. Second they are on reading impartial third party reports from international financial bodies on Chinese development. Again you clearly don't understand statistics, the graph that I posted of Chinese wealth distribution shows that China has a BIGGER middle class than the US does, what that means in simple terms to spell it out for you, is that as the GDP of China increases year on year it benefits a higher percentage of people than the equivalent GDP rise in the US. If you can't understand that simple maths from an impartial third party then there is no point in explaining anything to you.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by even sven

You missed the communique. For the last three years or so Confucious is cool again. He's been rebranded from a backwards, misogynist, supersticious feudalist into a CCP approved hero showing how the Party is the logical continuation of 5,000 years of Chinese Glory (TM) and is totally hip to what it has branded as Traditional Chinese Values which are now OK and that the Party has Always loved and supported harmoniously. Thousands of Confucious statues have been raised at universities and in cities and China's soft diplomacy institution is the Confucious Institute...which has a nicer ring than "the Commie Club" overseas.

Sounds like it took the CCP a long time to figure out what so many emperors knew: For the purposes of whoever is in power, Confucius is the best official philosopher conceivable.

[BrainGlutton]

I never figured a "What If?" thread on what China might be would reveal such deep, fundamental, factual disagreements as to what China is now. I don't know whom to believe. It seems nobody can even agree on whether China has a real sense of national identity (the one question I would have thought well settled), let alone whether its government is efficient or inefficient, effectual or ineffectual, compared to India or whatever.

[coremelt]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

let alone whether its government is efficient or inefficient, effectual or ineffectual, compared to India or whatever.

Of course, China's government is wasteful, inefficient, and prone to nepotism and corruption like all governments. But they are doing several very important things right, namely taking their massive trade surplus and re-investing it infrastructure. Their stated goal is to turn the rural areas into the factories and cheap labour areas and the coastal areas into IT, R&D and creative services hubs.

To bring it back to the relevance of this thread, I don't believe a democratic China that started in 1989 could have achieved the same result. Whether it's worth giving up your "freedom" of speech and religion for economic growth is a philosophical question which will vary to each individual. I can only say in my experience of Asian cultures, they are NOT americans and given the free choice most people from asian cultures do choose growth over absolute freedom.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by coremelt

I can only say in my experience of Asian cultures, they are NOT americans and given the free choice most people from asian cultures do choose growth over absolute freedom.

Eh? How often have they been "given the free choice"?

[China Guy]

I have a different perspective than most people since I spent about 3 years in the Chinese countryside before Tian'anmen and about 2 more decades after in Taipei, Hong Kong and Shanghai. My wife was born and grew up in the cultural revolution, and her broad family were not priviledged and I won't recount their story here suffice to say I've got relatives sent to the countryside, did hard time in a "reform through labor" prison camp, benefited from opening to the West, got fucked over from opening to the West, ad nauseum.

One thing that most people and the western press completely miss is the peasant story. For the first time ever in recorded Chinese history there is wealth accumulation in the countryside and peasants are free to leave the land. Estimates vary but there is at least 100 million if not 200 million migrant laborers in China. They make your iPads, are nannies, build buildings and are a key component of the entire China Inc export machine. Their life kinda sucks but the key point is that it generally sucks less than being a peasant. They send real trickle down money back to the countryside that pays for homes, microbusinesses, education and at least on occaision justice.

Since time immemorial, the Chinese peasants have been fucked over left right and center, and then every decade or less for much of China a natural calamity wipes out whatever they had that counted toward getting ahead and famine ruled the land. There has not been wide spread famine in the past 4 decades, which is a historic record for China. Today, those same peasants can work hard and "get ahead." Their kids can go to 3rd rate colleges in tier 4 cities, which is an unprecedented opportunity that Even Sven's students had, millions have permanently settled in Tier 1 cities.

But like any country, even if you aren't getting more pie, you want to have the realistic expectation that your kids will get a bigger piece of the pie. So, when the growth stagnates below a certain point for long enough, that will break the ruling party's contract of "we let you get rich, and you don't question our right to rule."*

*"Rich" being loosely defined. Right to rule means don't rock the boat and we won't interfere with your life to a large degree.

To Even Sven, you see a snapshot of the CCP today but don't have any historic context or understanding of just how far China has progressed since Mao met Nixon. I thought much the same as you did in 1985 when I first went to SouthWest China for months and months, eg there was no way China could modernize and the government had "lost the mandate of heaven." I give the Chinese government a lot of credit for getting this far and the people's lives many magnitudes better than 1985 (the highest aspiration then was to have a watch, washing machine and a sewing machine and not face starvation). Not to say that they are a benevolent ruler per say, but they've done reasonably well with the massive population and other challenges they face.

Back to the OP, I don't the peasantry would have been liberated to this extent had Tian'anmen been successfull and most likely the country devolved into a warlord state or worse. I don't see the kumbaya outcome.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by China Guy

There has not been wide spread famine in the past 4 decades, which is a historic record for China.

Why not? Improved farming techniques?