Do you see china as "the enemy"?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jonah5

Answer me this, why would they be building up a large army if not to attack someone, they allready have plenty of military to keep all of their neighbors at bay.

Perhaps for the same reason the US spends more on its military than the next 20 largest spenders combined? Self defense.

Man, that was SO EASY.

[Jonah5]

Ya'll just remember what I said...errr.....typed! Wish I was wrong but.....can't stop the inevitable.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by GePap
That a peaceful transfer of power has never occured does not mean that one can;t happen. That is point 1. But point two is simpler-even if the transfer of power is not peaceful, a non-peaceful transfer of power does not equate to national collapse. Think of Romania, or Latin America over and over. New technologies and ideologies mean new outcomes. This isn't 1912.

Then you really need to look at Chinese politics. It's a lot different than most western styles. The basic pattern has been periods of stability under a tyranical rule followed by terrible chaos when that rule collapses until a new power emerges that can bring order. To think that it is any different now, is to not understand how politics in China works.

Because when I say China is the future, I am not saying "in 20 years", or even in my lifetime perhaps. That is not the point. The point is that one day China will reach economic maturity (as it is measured today), and that day, given its simple size, it will be either the richest, or second richest state. That simple.

Well, that I can agree with.

This is where I think you are completely wrong. The modern instruments of the state have changed the game. Tibetans are weak, politically irrelevant, and unorganized. What chance would they have of actually breaking off, specially when they are not even a majority within the area they would seek to gain, if they even tried?

True, but Muslims were, and by some still are, thought of in that way as well. But Tibet will only gain indepedence, if China lets it because it has to (too costly to keep) or wants to (good PR).

It seems to me, all you do is extrapolate from Chinese history of 40 years ago and make pronouncements that "you know China". That to me is a pretty weak hand, because we are not talking about China in 1912, or 28, or 44. We are talking China in 2005.

Actually, I extrapolate from some 6000 years ago. There's not much difference politics wise. Basically, it all falls under the "mandate from heaven." So long as the ruling party has this, they have little to fear and can sway power easily, because no one can effectively challenge them if they have the mandate. As soon as they lose it, they lose it forever and its a freeforall for who is next. This goes back to the first emporer who united the warring states of China. After he died, his children were unable to maintain power and the country erupted into civil war. Emerging from that war was the Han, which brought great prosperity to China, until it enventually lost the mandate and plunged the country into chaos again and so on. To think that it is any different now, is to not understand how politics in China works.

A civil war in a state with nuclear weapons? Anyone who got the backing of the military and large industrial concerns would come into power, period. Governors and locals might have their little corrupt economic fiefdoms, but the simple fact is they simply don;t have the power to compete with whomever controls the military-industrial complex. Raising an army isn't about getting men anymore, Its about advanced weapons, something just any yahoo can;t make. A civil war in a poor country were veen the military is weak is one thing, civil war in a multi-ehtnic state as it collapses into multiple independent states, another. Civil war within a state in which multiple parties vie for power? Care to name the last such example? The new nature of military and economic power have changed that, and now that China is an industrial state, it falls under new rules.

Are you now arguing that it is impossible for the CCP to collapse because it has advanced weaponry? Or that if it does lose its mandate, advanced weapons will somehow make the transition peaceful and not affect the economy?

What will happen is what has always happened. Little fiefdoms will try to emerge. The new ruling party of "China" that emerged out of the chaos will then send the military in to take back these territories, kill the leaders, and basically show the populace who's in charge. The rub is how the transfer of military occurs, if the current party loses its mandate, and of course the state of repression as the new rulers establish their reign.

The last such example occurred in China where multiple parties were vying for power. In fact, it seemed certain that the KMT were the official party of China. However, communist rebels managed to push them out. How did a smaller group controlling so little territory end up ruling China?

So how is it an ill that is somehow specially Chinese, as some yahoos seem to insinuate?

Why are you asking me? Even you had to point out "China is simply doing everything in such a much larger scale."

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Prove me wrong then.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DaShi


Then you really need to look at Chinese politics. It's a lot different than most western styles. The basic pattern has been periods of stability under a tyranical rule followed by terrible chaos when that rule collapses until a new power emerges that can bring order. To think that it is any different now, is to not understand how politics in China works.

Politics is universal amongst humans. I don;'t believe in cultural political differences. If China has fallen apart,m it is from the "eastern" patter of very strong central power denying the growth of local powers, which means once the center falls there is no real power locally, leading to chaos. But I believe this ancient dialectic has been fundamentally changed by modernity.

True, but Muslims were, and by some still are, thought of in that way as well. But Tibet will only gain indepedence, if China lets it because it has to (too costly to keep) or wants to (good PR).

Given the CCP's repl;acement of sociualism with nationalism as the national ethos. the internal cost of letting Tibet go would always be higher than the cost to keep it in line-and PR be damned.

Actually, I extrapolate from some 6000 years ago. There's not much difference politics wise. Basically, it all falls under the "mandate from heaven." So long as the ruling party has this, they have little to fear and can sway power easily, because no one can effectively challenge them if they have the mandate. As soon as they lose it, they lose it forever and its a freeforall for who is next. This goes back to the first emporer who united the warring states of China. After he died, his children were unable to maintain power and the country erupted into civil war. Emerging from that war was the Han, which brought great prosperity to China, until it enventually lost the mandate and plunged the country into chaos again and so on. To think that it is any different now, is to not understand how politics in China works.

Again, I don't beliebv this is cultureallty Chinese, but the patter iof having too strong a center and very weak local politics. But again, modernity ahs changed this.

Are you now arguing that it is impossible for the CCP to collapse because it has advanced weaponry? Or that if it does lose its mandate, advanced weapons will somehow make the transition peaceful and not affect the economy?

NO, that even if there is temporray chaos, once the big institutions like the Army and big Industry decide on a winner, a winner there will be.

What will happen is what has always happened. Little fiefdoms will try to emerge. The new ruling party of "China" that emerged out of the chaos will then send the military in to take back these territories, kill the leaders, and basically show the populace who's in charge. The rub is how the transfer of military occurs, if the current party loses its mandate, and of course the state of repression as the new rulers establish their reign.

The current mandate of the aprty is economic growth. This will probably not change. Menaing that there will be huge pressure on anyone who takes over to produce eocnmic growth, meaning a ruthless demand for stability in order to let business growth. The CCP could very weell be raplced by a repressive right wing authoritarian regime.

The last such example occurred in China where multiple parties were vying for power. In fact, it seemed certain that the KMT were the official party of China. However, communist rebels managed to push them out. How did a smaller group controlling so little territory end up ruling China?

Because the KMT had no real ethos- a corrupt bunch of bastards. That was the genius of the CCP, the mobilization of the masses. The KMT did not understand modern politics, which is Mass politics. The CCP did.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Jonah5

Ya'll just remember what I said...errr.....typed! Wish I was wrong but.....can't stop the inevitable.

Jonah5, a couple of quick things:

- Given the last 150 years of history, who can be surprised if China builds a miitary strong enough to credibly prevent any further invasions of their homeland?

- China has a huge army, but would this army be effective very far from China's borders? Not much actual power projection capability.

- For nations, an impressive military can also be a source of prestige. China is an up-and-comer trying to impress the world (and it's own populace), see for example the 2008 Olympics, 2010 World Expo, mag-lev RR and the space program.

- The PLA is of course an army, but it is also China's #1 disaster relief force. Given that China has lots of major natural disasters (especially flooding), the size of the army may not necessarily be an indicator of aggressive intentions. The PLA's bulldozers and troop trucks see a lot more action than their tanks.

[The Mad Viking]

mindseye

My rankings were based on concentration of wealth in the hands of the top 1%.

IIRC

China - 46%
USA - 38%

I cannot for the life of me find this info right now. So feel free to be unconvinced.

Gini index measures something else, and drops with the existence of a larger middle class, like the US has. Probably a more important number.

But I found it fascinating that the "communist" and "capitalist" models resulted in similar concentration (or condensation) of wealth.

I did say "rough approximation" of Japan's model. I stick with that. Your comments are fair, but your conclusions seem overly pessimistic. On one hand you say it is bad for China that the workers are poor, and then you say it is bad for China that the workers are getting paid increases. It can't be both!

China has such a huge global market share that even a 50% increase in the cost of their goods, over the next 5 years, is not going to cause a decline in their exports; it will certainly put the brakes on growth, but it will also improve their internal economy and reinvestment.

Quality of Chinese goods is still generally poor, but quality has improved substantially over the past 10 and 20 years. So as they lose market share in the bottom price market, they will gain on the next tier. Just like Japanese products did from the 60s to the 90s.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by GePap


Politics is universal amongst humans. I don;'t believe in cultural political differences. If China has fallen apart,m it is from the "eastern" patter of very strong central power denying the growth of local powers, which means once the center falls there is no real power locally, leading to chaos. But I believe this ancient dialectic has been fundamentally changed by modernity.

And that's why your wrong on this topic. Sorry, but you can't cover the fact that you don't understand China by just saying everyone is the same. You've got to prove that China is the same. Let's look at what needs to be done with your argument here. First, you need to establish the "eastern pattern." Somehow it's just sounds like a simplified version of what I said. Second, you need to show what has changed in this respect by "modernity"? Then you need to show how these changes prevent the "eastern patterm" or better, my claim. From what I've seen there, from what I've heard from people there, from everything that I've read, I've seen no sign of this. China today is still like China, minus a bit of culture lost by Mao and plus a few cars and some emerging western ideas, none of which fundamentally alters the polical thought of the country.

Given the CCP's repl;acement of sociualism with nationalism as the national ethos. the internal cost of letting Tibet go would always be higher than the cost to keep it in line-and PR be damned.

It's still possible that Tibet could have its independence someday, but you've taken this way off topic.

Again, I don't beliebv this is cultureallty Chinese, but the patter iof having too strong a center and very weak local politics. But again, modernity ahs changed this.

Again, how? Because that's a very simplistic answer.

Are you now arguing that it is impossible for the CCP to collapse because it has advanced weaponry? Or that if it does lose its mandate, advanced weapons will somehow make the transition peaceful and not affect the economy?

NO, that even if there is temporray chaos, once the big institutions like the Army and big Industry decide on a winner, a winner there will be.

Wow! You really don't understand how things work in China. If the cental government falls, the Army will not be a cohesive unit and there is no one big industry that holds sway over the central government. This is China, not the West.

The current mandate of the aprty is economic growth. This will probably not change. Menaing that there will be huge pressure on anyone who takes over to produce eocnmic growth, meaning a ruthless demand for stability in order to let business growth. The CCP could very weell be raplced by a repressive right wing authoritarian regime.

That's nice, but if I could refer you back to my statement.

Because the KMT had no real ethos- a corrupt bunch of bastards. That was the genius of the CCP, the mobilization of the masses. The KMT did not understand modern politics, which is Mass politics. The CCP did.

And that responds to my argument how?

Frankly, either you don't know what you're talking about, can't stay focused, or are just trying to play a huge joke on me. I'm growing weary of it. This argument with you is going nowhere. You either give simple unsupported answers or responses that have nothing to do with the topic at hand (some of which have fallacies in themselves, but I'm not going to even bother). To put it blunt, you haven't shown anything, other than a misunderstanding of China. You certainly haven't shown an understanding of it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DaShi
And that's why your wrong on this topic. Sorry, but you can't cover the fact that you don't understand China by just saying everyone is the same. You've got to prove that China is the same. Let's look at what needs to be done with your argument here. First, you need to establish the "eastern pattern." Somehow it's just sounds like a simplified version of what I said. Second, you need to show what has changed in this respect by "modernity"? Then you need to show how these changes prevent the "eastern patterm" or better, my claim. From what I've seen there, from what I've heard from people there, from everything that I've read, I've seen no sign of this. China today is still like China, minus a bit of culture lost by Mao and plus a few cars and some emerging western ideas, none of which fundamentally alters the polical thought of the country.

I call it the "eastern pattern" because even the greeks called it that-the supposed difference between Greek home rule (democracy in athens, or aristocracies and monarchies in toher city states) vs. the despotism and Tyranny in Persia (the single ruler with total power over some great land).

And I will state right now that I disagree with you 100% on this whole notion that somehow culture changes politics and how its works more than simple socio-economic conditions.

China as a modern industrialized state will not behave like an agrarian state simply because of the continuity of culture. You say the army would break up if China broke up-WHY? Cause it happened before? Can you ellucidate on the nature of the Chinese high command, and why the various General and admirals would all of a sudden go solo? can you elucidate on why the junior officer corp would let it happen? Can you elucidate on why the PLA soldiers would decide to follow their own commanders and go along with some civil war? Care to go into the collapse of the simple job of provisioning the army, now conducted by a single burocracy, if the army were to break into pieces? How exactly would these people get oil to run their vehicles? Munitions? The simple fact is that modernization and industrialization make certain outcomes and behaviors highly imporbable, just on the very basic every day level. I find the notion that a modern military with a modern chain of command would "break up". And you have no evidence to even attemot that claim, other than "well, this is China, and it always happens".

Well, newsflash- the last time that happened was 1912, and China then was an agrarian state with limited infrastructure. Care to elucidate what in Chinese political philosophy or Chinese mindset is so utterly singly Chinese that for some arcane reason the fall of the central power will lead an industrialized state with much more advance infrascture down the same path, because THAT is the incredible arguement, not mine.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by GePap
I call it the "eastern pattern" because even the greeks called it that-the supposed difference between Greek home rule (democracy in athens, or aristocracies and monarchies in toher city states) vs. the despotism and Tyranny in Persia (the single ruler with total power over some great land).

So you're claiming that China's governments are like those of Persia. No wonder you're arguing like this. You don't understand China.

And I will state right now that I disagree with you 100% on this whole notion that somehow culture changes politics and how its works more than simple socio-economic conditions.

That's ok, I don't believe that you've studied political science to make a claim that culture doesn't influence politics and that politics are solely run by simple socio-economic conditions. If that was the case, any moron could be a political scientist because it would be so easy to understand, follow, and predict. Frankly, I don't care what you're personal, and what looks to be uneducated, beliefs are. If you think that political theory is that simple, fine. But don't enter in a discussion of something that you "think" is a certain way. Why? Look below.

China as a modern industrialized state will not behave like an agrarian state simply because of the continuity of culture. You say the army would break up if China broke up-WHY? Cause it happened before?

Soft answer: History is an excellent factor to predict China, because it has been so accurate in the past. To deny it now, would just be foolish. This doesn't mean that it is inevitable, but a good measure of what to expect. There's more to this, but it's unnecessary here.

Can you ellucidate on the nature of the Chinese high command, and why the various General and admirals would all of a sudden go solo?

Soft answer: Why wouldn't they, if the central government was no longer capable of supporting them or was vulnerable to rebellion? They have direct access to the army or at least a part of it. However, it would be more likely that should the CCP collapse or lose power, local leaders would woo generals for some control of the army to suport and defend their own juristictions. What they do from their depends on how much power they have accumulated. .

Hard answer: Of course, this has nothing to do with modernization or industrialization. We could ask these questions at the height of any past dynasty in China and look what happened to them. So this is a pointless question.

can you elucidate on why the junior officer corp would let it happen?

Soft answer: Because they know their place on the pecking order. If the government collapses they will follow the closest semblence of power in their immediate vicinity. They will fear the local power much more than a remote power that they are uncertain can protect them. The soldiers are guaranteed to follow their leaders. Despite it's appearance of collective thought, China is dependent on leaders.

Hard answer: Again nothing to do with industrialization and modernization. So why ask?

Can you elucidate on why the PLA soldiers would decide to follow their own commanders and go along with some civil war?

Soft answer: Focus. We're talking about the collapse of the government, not a revolt against it at the height of its power. An attack on the government in the form of civil war will only occur if the attacking side believes it would win. The soldiers will follow the commander, if they believe he is a good leader or powerful leader. Also see above.

Hard answer: But again, nothing to do with industrialization and modernization. At anytime, soldiers would have to ask themselves whether to follow their commanders or rebel against them. This is a waste of time.

Care to go into the collapse of the simple job of provisioning the army, now conducted by a single burocracy, if the army were to break into pieces? How exactly would these people get oil to run their vehicles? Munitions?

Soft answer: Collapse of central power means collapse of bureaucracy. Of course, those resources would still have to be somewhere, but not necessarily in the hands of the weaken central government, which is probably weaken because it lost them.

Hard answer: This also has nothing to do with modernization and industrialization. "An army moves on its stomach." Throughout history their had to be sources to provide for the army. Just because the weaponss may be different, doesn't mean that modernization and industrialization change this fact. At least, you've done nothing to demonstrate this. :yawn:

The simple fact is that modernization and industrialization make certain outcomes and behaviors highly imporbable, just on the very basic every day level.

How? None of the questions you've just asked me have anything to do with modernization and industrialization. Frankly, I felt like I was wasting my time answering them, because they have nothing to do with the discussion. You just look like someone who doesn't understand what we are talking about.

I find the notion that a modern military with a modern chain of command would "break up". And you have no evidence to even attemot that claim, other than "well, this is China, and it always happens".

Yes, it's unlikely that their will be a revolt at this time. The CCP has everything it needs to control the country. If it didn't, it would risk a new party trying to move in that had the missing component. That has nothing do to with industrialization and modernization. All I've been doing is showing that if the central power is weak enough to be conquered internally, it is very possible that it will be given how things worked and still work in China.

What being modern has to do with it, well, you've never answered that, have you? I don't know why your still clinging to this, because it has nothing to do with anything we've been discussing lately.

Well, newsflash- the last time that happened was 1912, and China then was an agrarian state with limited infrastructure.

Actually, it happened in the late 1940s again when the KMT lost to the CCP because they didn't have a strong central power.

So, um, newflash.

Care to elucidate what in Chinese political philosophy or Chinese mindset is so utterly singly Chinese that for some arcane reason the fall of the central power will lead an industrialized state with much more advance infrascture down the same path, because THAT is the incredible arguement, not mine.

Nor is it mine. That's just blatant twisting of my statements. Actually, it's not even a twist as a complete fabrication.

As for your argument. Well, you don't have one. All you've said is that modernization and industrialization make a government invulnerable to internal revolt. But you've said nothing to support this, so I can't even say it's your argument.

All you have done is try to twist my words (or just make up new ones to support, well nothing because you don't have an argument). Also, unlike you, I mention no certainties. I only state these as possibilities. Possibilities that the CCP is well aware of and enacts "laws" and actions to prevent from happening should the its power wane enough to make it vulnerable from within. You express certainties based on nothing.

Frankly, it's obvious that you don't know what you are talking about at all. You don't support your statements, your arguments are childishly simplistic, and you waste time asking me irrelevent questions. I kindly answered them, but I couldn't ignore how pointless they were.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Bosh
I'm always surprised how little India gets mentioned in these kind of threads. India's got a lot of potential and is growing at a very fast clip these days and while large-scale political change is only a matter of time in China (the CCP's monopoly on power won't last forever), I don't think the same applies as much to India. Also I think that India's boom industries have more long term potential than China's...

India's growth lags China and it is starting from a very small base. Also India hasn't developed the huge concentration of export industries like China has so all the worry warts are busy pontificating about China and don't have time to remember India.

India has 60 years worth of mismanagement to make up for. In 1945 India was by far the largest and most developed continental power in Asia (Japan's economy was bigger and more developed but they're not on the continent ) but decades of socialist mismanagement lead to very low growth rates. They didn't start reforming until the 1990's which is 15 years after China did plus the Indian government has slowly tiptoed into reforms while China went whole hog. China moved earlier and was more commited to reforms and they're reaping the benifets now.

[Dinner]

China has a lot of things going for it and a lot of things which are going against it. Tibet and the muslim western provences want independence while right up to 1949 there regional areas which were all attempting to assert independence against the central government. There are a lot of different ethnic, religious, and cultural groups in China and if there was a sudden weakness in the central government then it is as likely as not that we'd once again see regions attempting to break away from the central government. Then there is the problems of supporting the huge population and keeping them happy while the country makes its transition. As the coastal regions continue to get richer we might see the lesser developed areas become angry at the class & economic differences between the rich areas and the poor areas (this is especially true if there is a major fall in agricultural prices since so many Chinese are still farmers).

If the government can manage these challenges and continue strong growth then it is likely the country could develop into a first world country (a status it hasn't had for 500-800 years or so) though there is still a big if hanging over how it will manage the economic transition from an authoritarian one party state to a more open system. As people get richer they are likely to demand more freedom and since so many Asian countries are now democracies (including Taiwan) fewer people will buy the old CCP line that Democracies don't work in Asian countries. I'd say they'll make it as long as they can keep growth up, but, if the government stops delivering on the promised improvements to quality of life then things could get ugly.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Oerdin


India's growth lags China and it is starting from a very small base. Also India hasn't developed the huge concentration of export industries like China has so all the worry warts are busy pontificating about China and don't have time to remember India.

India has 60's worth of mismanagement to make up for. In 1945 India was by far the largest and most developed continental power in Asia (Japan's economy was bigger and more developed but they're not on the continent ) but decades of socialist mismanagement lead to very low growth rates. They didn't start reforming until the 1990's which is 15 years after China did plus the Indian government has slowly tiptoed into reforms while China went whole hog. China moved earlier and was more commited to reforms and they're reaping the benifets now.

Looooong term, my money is still on India due to the fact that

I'd say they'll make it as long as they can keep growth up, but, if the government stops delivering on the promised improvements to quality of life then things could get ugly.

will probably happen in China and since the Indian government has gone through all kinds of **** and weathered it I don't think anything similar will happen in India. Also Indias high-growth industries are much less likely to be undercut by competition by some dirt poor country once India and China's cost of labor start rising.

It will take a loooong time for India to catch up, but I still think that it's highly doable, especially with there being a lot more English-speakers in India than in China.

[Dinner]

India has a great education system and since it's legal system is transparent and based on English common law investors (both Indian and foreign) trust the courts to deal with them fairly. Those are two big pluses for India. If India continues to remove the socialist red tape and pushes open protected markets to competition it's growth rate will continue to increase. Currently textiles remain one of India's big export earners and that faces stiff opposition from China though they're pushing strong into IT, software, and other engineering work. Long run they'll do well if they can manage population growth so that it doesn't out strip economic growth.

A strong Indian economy would be great for the world not only because it open up opportunities but also because Indian companies could be strong competitors to provide goods and services plus it would mean China & the US wouldn't be the only game in town for fast growth. Can India "beat" China? Likely China will remain the big whig in Asia though a strong India could be a good counter balance. The competition would be good for everyone including the two contestants.

[Sandman]

India has an appalling education system.

Chinese literacy: 90%.

Indian literacy: 60%.

They have a good (or bloated, depending on your POV) university system, churning out graduates to drive the buses.