4 ms·
I think where we're likely to agree is that, if popular dissatisfaction does lead to fundamental change, it's not likely to be the dissatisfaction of middle cla
by girzel 9y ago
I think where we're likely to agree is that, if popular dissatisfaction does lead to fundamental change, it's not likely to be the dissatisfaction of middle class folks demanding Western-style freedoms. It's much more likely to come from the bottom layers of society, who are fed up with gross inequality and horrible injustice.
That said, it is useful to constantly remind yourself that your point of view on China is only ever a tiny corner of the picture. I lived there for 15 years (not to make this a pissing contest) and speak Chinese fluently, and my peer group there was mad as hell about the government. But I know that hanging out with writers and journalists is going to give me a pretty skewed point of view on the country as a whole.
Lastly, about "thousands of years of single party rule", I think Chinese history over the past 150 years makes it abundantly plain that Chinese people have absolutely had it with single party rule. From the Xinhai Revolution, to May Fourth, to the early 1950 political participation, to 1989, to the Charter '08, the history of China in the modern period is the history of a people who are doing their goddamn best to throw off authoritarianism, and who keep getting crushed by the authorities. And then, twenty or thirty years later, they get up and do it again. It's fucking heartbreaking, to be honest. Each time it's led by an educated elite, not necessarily "the masses", but that's how change usually happens.
The big difference now is that the educated elite has been numbed by consumerism, and the pissed-off folks are on the bottom. That's also a bad place to be, though, as far as the government is concerned.
- barry-cotter 9y ago> I think where we're likely to agree is that, if popular dissatisfaction does lead to fundamental change, it's not likely to be the dissatisfaction of middle class folks demanding Western-style freedoms. It's much more likely to come from the bottom layers of society, who are fed up with gross inequality and horrible injustice. This is not how revolutions work. Revolutions are always and everywhere the work of frustrated elites, people who have the education and skills to be the ruling class who aren't. The only successful slave revolt in history was lead by the educated creoles of Haiti. Revolts never come from those at the bottom of society because they're too poor and weak to riot and demonstrate. Social unrest happens when things have been getting better and then they get worse. The Party-State is secure as long as the economy keeps growing.
- grwthckrmstr 9y ago"The Party-State is secure as long as the economy keeps growing." Hmm. Interesting. This implies that the government will do everything in its power to ensure that the economy keeps growing. Would you say that contributes to long term prosperity of its subjects?
- perlpimp 9y agoor start a way are roll back to communism by enabling near nation state to stir things up via war route.
- vacri 9y agoBrexit is a good example of this. There was a lot of grassroots discontent, but it took educated elites to organise and focus it into something they wanted. The people at the bottom just simply don't have much experience in organising politically.
- girzel 9y agoHere's where Chinese history diverges from "everyone else's" history. In China, dynasty-ending revolutions have nearly always begun with peasant uprisings.