DanS: Hu is now the man

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by ranskaldan


China is no longer Stalinist. So the argument the two of you are having is somewhat irrelevant.

The leadership still is Stalinist. Not philosophically, but in its bureaucratic rule. Stalinism is (among other things) the rule of the bureaucracy in a workers' (or peasants') state.

[Winston]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Leave us to our personal fight!

Yeah!



Great smiley, never saw it before...

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The leadership still is Stalinist. Not philosophically, but in its bureaucratic rule. Stalinism is (among other things) the rule of the bureaucracy in a workers' (or peasants') state.

Well yes, if any dictatorship or semi-dictatorship is Stalinist, Iran, Singapore, Rome and Mongol Khanate included, then yes, China is very Stalinist.

Leave us to our personal fight!

okay, have fun guys... I'll watch.
(mmm I like that smiley too!)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Well yes, if any dictatorship or semi-dictatorship is Stalinist, Iran, Singapore, Rome and Mongol Khanate included, then yes, China is very Stalinist.

Not [i]any dictatorship, but dicatorships of the bureaucracy based on very specific forms of property, i.e., socialist property. China, for all it's capitalist inroads, is still a socialist country, by and large. Captialism is growing in China by leaps and bounds, but the vast majority of the economy is still socialist.

At some point or another there's gonna be violence over this, too. There is tremendous risk in being a mainland Chinese capitalist. One of these days, they could all end up dead. Bureaucracies like easy solutions to problems. Mass execution is a very easy solution.

[DanS]

I hoped this thread wouldn't degenerate into this.

Hu's personal contribution to the collective evil that is the Chinese government has been noted. Thanks.

If there's nothing else that can be learned from this instance as it relates to Hu's background and grooming, then please take it to another thread, damn it.

Alinestra: Thanks for the rundown. That explains a whole lot to me about him and why Tianneman was ultimately supressed.

However, just from an operational standpoint, was Hu #1 the leader of the party, as is Hu #2? What I'm trying to judge is how hard it would be to reverse Hu #2's leadership, should Jiang's cronies believe it necessary, and what steps they would take to do the putsch.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Not [i]any dictatorship, but dicatorships of the bureaucracy based on very specific forms of property, i.e., socialist property. China, for all it's capitalist inroads, is still a socialist country, by and large. Captialism is growing in China by leaps and bounds, but the vast majority of the economy is still socialist.

At some point or another there's gonna be violence over this, too. There is tremendous risk in being a mainland Chinese capitalist. One of these days, they could all end up dead. Bureaucracies like easy solutions to problems. Mass execution is a very easy solution.

I remember seeing somewhere that the private sector has already surpassed the public sector in China. No idea whether it is true or what the true stats are.

However, that is beside the point; budding capitalism and capitalists depend on the government to maintain a stable environment. Violence from laid-off government workers or jobless peasants is possible, but not likely yet.

Also, I don't exactly see mass execution as a "solution".

Originally posted by DanS
Hu's personal contribution to the collective evil that is the Chinese government has been noted. Thanks.

I wouldn't be so quick to make that judgement. Deng, for one, was one of the most enlightened rulers China has ever known, period. He did far more good than evil. Without him, China would have been like North Korea - or worse. Tian'anmen is a blotch on his record, but if you lived in China, you would understand how the lives of millions upon millions of people are undescribably better because of him. That includes my life and the lives of all my family.

His successors are less creative and more boneheaded, Jiang and Hu #2 included, but at least they're following Deng's path.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
However, that is beside the point; budding capitalism and capitalists depend on the government to maintain a stable environment. Violence from laid-off government workers or jobless peasants is possible, but not likely yet.

Also, I don't exactly see mass execution as a "solution".

You are assuming China remains on the path it is currently treding, and doesn't decide to crush the capitalists after having industrialized the country. China has changed direction several times since the revolution.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DanS
However, just from an operational standpoint, was Hu #1 the leader of the party, as is Hu #2? What I'm trying to judge is how hard it would be to reverse Hu #2's leadership, should Jiang's cronies believe it necessary, and what steps they would take to do the putsch.

Yes, Hu #1 was the General Secretary, thus nominally the leader of the CCP.

You may consider Hu as one of Jiang's cronies

Anyway, they probably can't do anything without backings of some heavyweights in the party. That's why Jiang's retaining the position of the Chairman of the Central Military Committee.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Winston
That post seemed a bit desperate to me, UR.

I've yet to hear of Buddhist monks killing people for fun...

Then maybe you need should study some Tibetan history. Real history, that is.

Originally posted by Winston
And the majority of exiled Tibetans aren't part of any former ruling class to my knowledge. Even if they were, I wouldn't disregard their persistant reports of human rights violations by the Chinese. But it seems you already have.

Not entirely, but discounted heavily. It is implausible that they have an impartial position.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You are assuming China remains on the path it is currently treding, and doesn't decide to crush the capitalists after having industrialized the country. China has changed direction several times since the revolution.

That is a very horrific possibility. However, if the country reaches a certain level of wealth, the people won't support a communistic revolution in the first place. Assuming that no new madman like Mao is born and raised up the ladder, the government wouldn't want that either. It is exactly the same thing with America or Europe.

also, Winston:

If anything, pre-49 Tibet was not ruled by monks. It was ruled by a religious, landowning elite.

There is one example of such rule in the world today: Iran. Great example, isn't it.

[Lord Merciless]

Or the rule of the Taliban, for example.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
A country which killed off 1/3rd of its own population simply wouldn't have the ability to defeat the most powerful, best trained, best equipped army in the world.

Not to quibble...okay, I will

The Wehrmacht was certainly not the most powerful or best equipped army in the world, and best trained is at least debatable.

[DanS]

"I remember seeing somewhere that the private sector has already surpassed the public sector in China. No idea whether it is true or what the true stats are."

The range is somewhere between 30% and 60%. Economic statistics are notoriously imprecise in China.

"Anyway, they probably can't do anything without backings of some heavyweights in the party. That's why Jiang's retaining the position of the Chairman of the Central Military Committee."

Would the scenario be that the military would step in (such as happens in Turkey), or is this just a place in which to put someone of Jiang's stature, and he would step in using other methods?

[Urban Ranger]

Dan,

You are correct, this is a position for somebody with a high ranking in the CCP, sort of like a semi-retirement. The position doesn't involve much work but carries a lot of clout. As far as I can tell, the military is very unlikely to get involved directly. Most likely some intra-party politics will be involved.