3 ms·
I would add that China faces the prospect of, to say the least, internal political instability. Like all postmodern authoritarian governments, theirs is based o
by dkimball 17y ago
I would add that China faces the prospect of, to say the least, internal political instability. Like all postmodern authoritarian governments, theirs is based on the idea that in exchange for sacrificing freedom and autonomy, the population will get very rich -- so if they don't deliver on the wealth, they'll face a great deal of restiveness.
While a few provinces are doing well (Guangdong most prominently), inland China is still very backwards -- and, reportedly, increasingly disgusted with the government. The one-child policy is still enforced there, brutally; despite the almost complete lack of journalists' access to mainland China, I've heard reports of spontaneous, armed "mutinies" among the populace -- attacks on government officials, on account of the one-child policy, or over taxes, or for whatever reason.
China is less politically stable than it looks; for all we know, the next Liu Bang or Zhu Yuanzhang may have already taken to the hills. And if you think that the Chinese government can't possibly collapse _now_, that we'll never see a period of good old-fashioned Chinese interregnal warlordism in the 21st century, I remind you that we saw one in the 20th, when it was equally anachronistic and inconceivable -- the most chaotic period of the Five Races Under One Union was the 1920s, contemporary with the Wiemar Republic and _The Great Gatsby_.
Of course, China eventually becoming powerful is almost inevitable; sailormoon points out that their sheer numbers argue for that, especially when combined with a culture which, though nominally Confucian-Legalist, has a very real "go-getting" idiom. This is the other side of China: the brash, independent style of the world of mountain and river, ultimately tracing back to the xiá (侠), the knights of the feudal Zhou dynasty. It may be some time before this happens -- their current postmodern authoritarian government has to either reform or be overthrown first, I think -- but it will arrive.
For further reading, look up Boye de Mente's _The Chinese Have a Word for It_.
- netcan 17y agoLike all postmodern authoritarian governments, theirs is based on the idea that in exchange for sacrificing freedom and autonomy, the population will get very rich -- so if they don't deliver on the wealth, they'll face a great deal of restiveness. Mybe you're right but, I think that the reason most people think this is because they are disgusted with the Chinese system and therefore are quick to conclude that it is bad and failing in every other way. It is less table, for example. The truth is that any system that fails to provide growth, internal peace or fails to meet expectations is probably at risk. Looking far enough into the future (say, 50 years), any system is at risk.
- dkimball 17y agoI agree that any system that fails to provide growth is in a certain amount of danger. For what it's worth, I try to remain objective in appraising China's situation; I'm not exactly delighted with them, but I try to avoid being actively disgusted, or at least to avoid letting my disgust get in the way of my appraisal of the situation. I continue to think, though, that "postmodern authoritarianism" (my phrase, but I'm sure it's been coined elsewhere) is more vulnerable than most other systems of government, because the whole implicit promise involved here is that the people will sacrifice certain desiderata in exchange for certain others. When a medieval state failed to provide prosperity to its people, they weren't happy and often became restive, but the damage was mitigated by its being the judgment of God; when the United States faced extreme difficulties in the Great Depression, the rate of crime went down, not up (with some obvious fedora-wearing exceptions), as most of the population was loyal to itself and saw the government as an extension of itself; when Imperial Japan instituted strict rationing and drafted large numbers of soldiers in the Second World War, their credibility was not at risk at all, since all these were sacrifices for a cause, for the will of Amaterasu. But a postmodern authoritarianism doesn't have a reason for its citizens to remain loyal, it doesn't have a higher goal for them to work for, and it doesn't have an external cause (or an external enemy: I didn't mention the Nazis above, but I could have) to be blamed for its problems. Its whole social contract is "give up on certain freedoms and you'll be rich!", so when that's no longer the case, the government is in trouble. In fairness, though, this may not be the case in China as much as in Russia. The United Russia party's platform has been more or less explicitly this: "let us stay in power and we'll restore the prosperity, military might, and international prestige of Russia." Communist China doesn't really have a "platform" of this sort, especially now that they're "CINOs" (Communists In Name Only) in the post-Deng Xiaoping era; so economic failures might not discredit them as much or as quickly, but, on the other hand, they're still not going to have much of a flag to rally around.
- netcan 17y agoLike all postmodern authoritarian governments, theirs is based on the idea that in exchange for sacrificing freedom and autonomy, the population will get very rich -- so if they don't deliver on the wealth, they'll face a great deal of restiveness. Mybe you're right but, I think that the reason most people think this is because they are disgusted with the Chinese system and therefore are quick to conclude that it is bad and failing in every other way. It is less table, for example. The truth is that any system that fails to provide growth, internal peace or fails to meet expectations is probably at risk. Looking far enough into the future (say, 50 years), any system is at risk.