Whoi knew a bunch of Japanese textbook could cause such trouble?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DaShi
Economically, yes. Politically, no. In fact, I'd say it's a bit worse.

I'm interested.

Could you please describe what has grown worse since?

It was my belief that the overall political apathy of the Chinese population made the elites less gun-happy. Would you please tell me what hints otherwise?

[DaShi]

The apathy is the problem. The elites have been free to do what they want and have been able to nestle themselves firmly in power. The recent protests kept known "trouble makers" under house arrest. Students who were not authorized to protest were put into classrooms where they could be monitored by their teachers and less politically rebelious classmates. Just because less guns are fired, doesn't mean the system is less oppressive. Just the opposite in this case. Fear and lack of opportunity are keeping a lot people from openly expressing their grievances. Farmers and poor minorities are the only ones left to protest now, because they have nothing to lose.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Oerdin

The CCP is willing to kill thousands, even millions, to stay in power. People power is useless against them unless the people are armed.

Oh, I don't think that's true at all. These days the CCP seems far less likely to use lethal force. In all of the uprisings of the last few years, this has never been the case, as far as I know. Even when thousands of citizens were stoning gov't officials huddling inside buildings, lethal force was not used.

Just look at the recent raid on the village of HuanKantou. The raiders were equipped tear gas and cattle prods, but guns were never used, even after villagers broke down the walls the police were hiding behind. By the way, it may be that the reason the villagers so easily routed the police is that many of the "police" may have been unwitting irregulars rounded up under false pretenses (mountain hiking!), who refused to participate or ran at the first sign of trouble.

The CCP's current MO is usually to send in Beijing officials to make soothing statements and concessions (which may or may not materialize), letting the public cool off, then ferreting out the organizers and severely punishing them.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Spiffor

The CCP boys are only interested in keeping their power. and they know that their regime is too weak to survive a widespread revolution/uprising.
There was a time where the Chinese regime found loyalty by force-feeding an ideology, and ruthlessly massacre anybody who disagreed. This time forunately belongs to the past, as the CCP has considerably mellowed out, and you can't really prop up the communist ideology when you are a blatant capitalist regime.
As such, the CCP's new form of keeping the people content is threefold: 1) feed them with economic growth, so that they're content with the outputs of the regime.
2) Keep them as apthetic toward the regime as possible, by isolating/offing activists, and letting no communication channel free of giving new ideas. OTOH, let them be obsessed about buying the latest cell phone.
3) Channel their discontent toward an enemy that is not the regime. The Japanese make a fantastic target. Look like the one party that cares for the glorious Chinese nation.

I thnk that's very accurate, especially the part about cell phones.

[Ned]

Question: Is there any difference between today's CCP and yesterday's Nazi Germany? Both were totalitarian regimes that supported capitalism while also supporting socialism (universal health care, Volkswagen). Both were extremely nationalistic. Both had a racially-based boogeyman: Jews in the case of Nazi Germany. Japanese in the case of China. Both have territorial demands. Taiwan in the case of China.

Are there any differences that matter between the two regimes?

[Kidlicious]

I suppose there are some differences, but they certainly have some similarities Ned.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I suppose there are some differences, but they certainly have some similarities Ned.

Then are we to learn any lessons from the evolution of the Chinese Communist Party vs. communisms demise in the USSR?:

Communism evolves into Nazism or it is replaced by democracy.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned


Then are we to learn any lessons from the evolution of the Chinese Communist Party vs. communisms demise in the USSR?:

Communism evolves into Nazism or it is replaced by democracy.

Those aren't the only two possibilities, and Russia is still no paradise regardless of it being somewhat more democratic now.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Those aren't the only two possibilities, and Russia is still no paradise regardless of it being somewhat more democratic now.

Perhaps, but it "officially" supports capitalism and is drifting, I agree, towards fascism. Perhaps the fate of all communists nations is to embrace capitalism and become, in essence, fascist states.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ned
Question: Is there any difference between today's CCP and yesterday's Nazi Germany? Both were totalitarian regimes that supported capitalism while also supporting socialism (universal health care, Volkswagen). Both were extremely nationalistic. Both had a racially-based boogeyman: Jews in the case of Nazi Germany. Japanese in the case of China. Both have territorial demands. Taiwan in the case of China.

Are there any differences that matter between the two regimes?

China believes Taiwan is a renegade province. It isn't going to be invading countries left and right. In fact it hasn't engaged in any aggressive war since the Revolution. While they may dislike Japanese, they have a good reason, and they haven't make them second class citizens, nor put them in camps and slaughter them.

Also they are set up differently.

That's fairly significant distinction.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Perhaps, but it "officially" supports capitalism and is drifting, I agree, towards fascism. Perhaps the fate of all communists nations is to embrace capitalism and become, in essence, fascist states.

I think culture might have something to do with it.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


China believes Taiwan is a renegade province. It isn't going to be invading countries left and right. In fact it hasn't engaged in any aggressive war since the Revolution. While they may dislike Japanese, they have a good reason, and they haven't make them second class citizens, nor put them in camps and slaughter them.

Also they are set up differently.

That's fairly significant distinction.

They invaded Shinkaing and Tibet, annexing both. They invaded Vietnam, but were handed their lunch. They are making noises about Taiwan, but are restrained by US Power.

There is a lot of evidence of aggressive, nationalistic, behavior.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I think culture might have something to do with it.

True. Both China and Russia never really knew democracy.

Can the same be said of Germany though? (It is amazing, when you think of it, that anyone could have taken a democratic nation into total despotism. But Hitler did.)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
It is amazing, when you think of it, that anyone could have taken a democratic nation into total despotism. But Hitler did.

It's hardly amazing. In fact, it's extremely common for new democracies to sucumb to strongmen: England, France (twice), Spain, Germany, Italy, Poland, the Baltic states, etc. etc.

The U.S. is more the exception here than the rule. We were blessed with a founding generation that valued democracy. Not merely a generation, but an unheard of quantity of great democratic leaders. Despite this, there was an early attempt to establish a dicatorship here that fortunately fizzled out: Arron Burr's attempted coup. And of course, there was the Cincinatus Society which wanted to make Washington King George I.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned


True. Both China and Russia never really knew democracy.

Can the same be said of Germany though? (It is amazing, when you think of it, that anyone could have taken a democratic nation into total despotism. But Hitler did.)

Germany was too militaristic and nationalistic to be very democratic.