I wonder if it will eventually go out as peacefully as the Soviet Bloc did. The Chinese government seems willing to compromise on anything so long as their basic and total power is left untouched. It is that frightened death-grip coupled with a sort of ultra-racial-nationalism that led to the Tienanmen Square massacre and makes me wonder if fundamental change is possible without the violent overthrow of the “peoples revolution”.
Well, I haven’t any specific proof to back it up, but I should imagine that (failing some spectacuarly stupid and unancticipated action by any of the involved factions), that things will progress much the same as in a number of other autocratic states (some quite close by)- take Singapore, for example. As gradual economic development (mainly based, of course, on the P.R.C’s slow abandonment of communism) occurs, a monied and affluent group not intimately connected to or reliant on the central authority will develop, who will demand an increasing number of intellectual and (eventually) political freedoms. The central government will, slowly and unwilling, cede control in a gradualist nature, probably based on increased regional autonomy if (what looks like) their slightly relaxing stance towards Tibet is any judge. So, a whimper.
This is all just a very loose and poor transcription of F. Zakaria inestimable “The Future of Freedom” (especially the Singapore example), but, of course, I might be wrong. I’m no expert, and I can easily see a “bang” being provoked by, say, Tibetan terrorism following the death of the current Dalai Lama, an incident somehow involving Taiwan (and, God forbid, the US), or even something as simple as current policies continued in the teeth of growing social and econonomic freedom. What if the attempted Army coup in Moscow in 1991 had succeeded? We could still have a (reduced and bloody) USSR.
Of course, ultimately there’s no IMMEDIATE reason for Communist China (by which I mean the current leadership and their cherry-picked successors, rather than any one economic or policital framework, which I doubt they are seriously wedded to) to collapse. I would be suprised if it happened within, say, the next 20 years. Other than the instinctive desire to go “Communism bad! Rrrrrr!”, China’s economy seems to be going reasonably well under a kind of “state capitalism”, equivalent to the USSR’s N.E.P. in the 1920’s. I doubt there will be serious popular agitation for regime change until harsher economic times roll around- “You can’t agitate a man on a full stomach”.
Wow, what a wooly post. “It might go with a whimper, unless it goes with a bang, unless it doesn’t go at all.”
Communism’s already dead in China. What you have there is just plain old authoritarianism, holding on to the communist name to try to maintain a shred of legitimacy.
China has kept a lid on unrest by offering it’s people better lives through its economic growth. But no nation’s economy goes on growing forever without hitting a recession eventually, and China can’t keep up constant growth forever. When they hit their next recession and people can’t improve thier lives anymore through economic ladder climbing, I imagine unrest against their authoritarian gov’t will look more attractive.
Bang or Wimper? I have no idea. But some of the most bloody conflicts of the last century have been Chinese domestic unrest, so if it is a bang, I predict it will be a big one, with a million plus dead through war, disease and starvation.
Earlier thread: “Is the Chinese government on its last legs?” – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=267456
The consensus was, no.
I think this is right.
As for how the authoritarian regime falls…I think it depends on what you think the PLA will do. If middle-class pressure becomes too strong too soon, I think the downfall will be violent because the PLA will still be loyal to the regime. But with enough time and weakening of propaganda, I think the PLA will easily roll over for middle-class revolutionaries.
It will end with a bang, when climate changes cause crop shortages and an angry populace. This will be coupled with a massive layoff of most of the middle-class to poverty-level workforce when the United States experiences another great depression. The Chinese government will either implode or give their people something to keep themselves preoccupied with, like an expansion project to the west. Maybe to some of those oil-rich territories?
You think the regime will stay stable until global warming really ramps up?
Is there any government that won’t implode if/when that happens?
Couldn’t agree more. As Popper (Conjectures and Refutations, 344) said, “Classes…never rule, any more than nations. The rulers are always certain persons. And whatever class they may have belonged to, when they are rulers they belong to the ruling class.” My own feeling is that the very poor citizens of the interior will become more and more restive, and ultimately perhaps unruly, as they hear about the standard of living in the cities, and the corruption, and as the State is unable to do anything about the catastrophes in industries such as mining.
Personally, I don’t think there’ll be a Berlin-Wall-style peaceful revolution in China, because, at least in part of the difference between Chinese and Europeans. I think one may identify a lack of understanding, brought about in part by poor education and in part by the psyche and ethos of the Chinese, brought about in large part by their lack of Judeo-Christian background. (It is I think impossible to overestimate the difference between the USA, on the one hand, truly, even now, a bastion of morals and religion (even for the atheists, which is the true measure of the phenomenon), and China, on the other, a place whose moral anchor has never been strong, and which has suffered further and immensely through the vicious, senseless and hateful things done by Mao.
Factionalism is the essence of Chinese politics (HK provides a good example). How this can be squared with “democracy” is a big poser.
:dubious: No strong “moral anchor” in the civilization that invented Confucianism?!
Asked and answered. Read The Federalist.
Well, England invented the rolled umbrella, the bowler hat and the copy of The Times, but it hasn’t stopped most actual Englishmen being yobs. And I wouldn’t say that C’ism is about providing a moral anchor anyway; more like a code to keep folk in their appointed places.
:rolleyes:
No, you’ve demonstrated that it’s quite possible.
As pointed out, only the dying vestiges of communism still remail. This is an intensely capitalistic country, in many ways unbridled capitalism unrivaled anywhere in the world. There is still a totaletarian center and corrupt government at the local level.
I guess that answers the OP, communism went out with such a bare whimper that it wasn’t even noticed in the western press.
I personally am pretty confident that China will not split apart into a balkanization/anarchy state.
Why not? I mean, do the Chinese still have any faith at all in their government?
Oi, wot a berk! 'Eave arf a brick at 'im!
Oh, I’m sorry. My true nature, cunningly revealed by roger thornhill incisive and o-so-representative analysis momentarily overwhelmed the thin veneer of civilisation I don while posting. May I ask on what evidence you based this absurd generalisation?
Let’s look at the evidence: let’s assume you call anyone who engages in criminal behaviour a “yob” (despite the fact that this will include a good deal of white-collar crime, and various other offences that mostly likely wouldn;t meet your definition of yob- which I’d like to see, btw.)
According to this, there were 5.9 million crimes commited in the UK in 2003/4 (the last year for which I could find figures). Let us assume that each of these crimes is committed by a different person (ignoring repeat offenders). The population of the UK in 2004 was 50.1 million (according to wikipedia) so that means that- less than 12% of England and Wale’s residents engaged in criminal behaviour, using the statistics most skewed in your favour! I’d be interested to know how 11% of the population constitutes “most Englishmen”.
Alternatively, you may have been basing your definition of “Yob”, “most”, or, for that matter, “Englishmen” on some esoteric basis of which I am not aware. On the other hand, if you are willing to qualify Confucianism as being without a moral centre, no doubt you feel no need to relate your arguments to the real world.
As I thought, the detection rate of Her Majesty’s various police forces leaves a lot to be desired. And since when was a yob the same thing as a criminal? Careful, or you’ll have the Barmy Army after you.
My point, for those who missed it, is that the importance of “Confucianism” (whatever is meant by that) to the average person living in Gansu, Shanxi or Guizhou, as well as in Fuzhou, Shanghai and Tianjin, is not what it is often cracked up to be. Whereas the legacy of the Judeo-Christian backdrop exercises a real and important influence over how many Westerners (especially, I would contend, in the States, given its history and its development) view the world, and, to some extent, behave.
Of course, this influence is dwindling, which is a cause for great concern for those who care for liberty.
If you want to argue that religion is the only source of morality and liberty, you’d do well to open your own debate thread. Simply leaving it as an unsupported assumption in your argumnent is bad form and worse debating.
I might also add that the notion that whole nations have a common “psyche and ethos” should remain in the realm of 19th century proto-sociology.
I read in national geographic not too long ago that humans rights have improved alot in the last 5-10 years. I can’t find an internet link on the subject though.
By Communism I assume you mean central economic planning and authoritarianism. I predict the authoritarian gov. will keep getting weaker and weaker but I don’t know if/when the central economic planning will go away, or if it even should.
RP, if you’re interested in learning more about the ethos of at least a portion of the world’s Chinese population, the following books provide serviceable introductions:
Lau, S.K. and Kuan, H.C. (1988) The Ethos of the Hong Kong Chinese, Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.
Kwok, N.W. (1996) 1997: Hong Kong’s Struggle for Selfhood, Hong Kong: Daga Press.
The second, written by a Protestant priest, is particularly perspicacious and unusually critical for a local author.