4 ms·

> This is frightening to social scientists in China who analyze society from a Marxist framework, especially those who have noticed that regional wealth gaps in

> This is frightening to social scientists in China who analyze society from a Marxist framework, especially those who have noticed that regional wealth gaps in China are greater than those in Yugoslavia before Yugoslavia disintegrated. I don't see what Yugoslavia has to do with it. Yugoslavia was a very different situation, in that each republic was populated by a different ethnic group, with a history of squabbling. Slovenia and Croatia were wealthier than the other republics, and they resented the fact that Serbia held the reigns of political and military power in the federation. It is not accidental that these were the first two republics to break away -- and also that they managed to break away successfully. In contrast, Bosnia had a large Serb population, and they weren't about to let go without a fight. China is different, in that most of the rich provinces have a majority-Chinese population, and most of the poor provinces are also majority-Chinese. The only provinces they're worried about are Xinjiang and Tibet -- and that's an ethnic problem, not an economic problem. The reason that the Chinese Communist Party is worried about the distribution of wealth is that they don't want a grassroots communist revolution. They know all too well how those things get started ...

tokenadult 13y ago
China proper has a 2000+ year tradition of unification. No. China is a divided country today, if you believe the official view of both the P.R.C. and R.O.C. regimes about Taiwan as a territory of China, and China was divided into territories ruled by warlords as recently as my own parents' childhood. There have been many periods of Chinese history when the territory that is now known as the country of China was ruled by multiple, warring regimes, and interregional ethnic tension among nominally "Han" people in China is well known to anyone who speaks Chinese (as I do) or has studied Chinese history (as I have). I referred to Yugoslavia in my comment to which you kindly reply because this is an example that has been pointed out to me by Chinese social scientists. If one accepts a Marxist framework of economic determinism, as many social scientists in China continue to do, the break-up of Yugoslavia was all but inevitable once regional economic disparities became as great as they were in Yugoslavia in the 1990s. But regional economic disparities in China are now greater, and not least in the large swaths of territory that historically have been part of Tibet and eastern Turkestan. The reason that the Chinese Communist Party is worried about the distribution of wealth is that they don't want a communist revolution, such as the one that originally brought them into power. Yes, the current leaders of China have violent regime change as well as territorial dissolution to worry about. I'm agreed with you there.
- anatari 13y ago
  Bad comparison because squabbling in China is more like between brothers in that they are trying to gain power over the family, and not trying to break away from it. Chinese Nationalism is probably as strong now as ever, and I think the chances of breakup among the core provinces that aren't already independent are very low.
- tanzam75 13y ago
  > No. China is a divided country today, if you believe the official view of both the P.R.C. and R.O.C. regimes about Taiwan as a territory of China > If one accepts a Marxist framework of economic determinism, as many social scientists in China continue to do, the break-up of Yugoslavia was all but inevitable once regional economic disparities became as great as they were in Yugoslavia in the 1990s. I said "China proper," not "the current borders of China, including Taiwan and Tibet and all the other acquisitions over the years." I also said that China proper had a "tradition of unification," not "uninterrupted existence as a unified state." They may split apart from time to time, but they keep coming back together. I find it strange that you keep bringing up the "Marxist framework of economic determinism." The Marxists like to view the world through a narrow lens of economics and class struggle. This is not necessarily wrong -- but it doesn't give them the full picture. Slovenia and Croatia were not just the richest republics in Yugoslavia. They'd also been ruled by the Habsburgs for 400 years, used the Latin alphabet, and felt a greater affinity towards Western Europe than towards their brother Slavs. And as for economic determinism, why did every other Yugoslav republic also break away? Bosnia and Macedonia are quite close to Serbia in per-capita GDP. Yes, Yugoslavia had a 4-1 ratio in per-capita GDP among its constituent parts, and so does China. But so does Mexico. So does Brazil. So does India. If those countries haven't broken up, then clearly economics sometimes takes a back seat to other factors, like ethnicity and nationalism.
  - rz2k 13y ago
    You don't have to have economics taking a back seat to recognize that per capita income levels are not the only economic statistic. Most likely at a very localized level the issues of nationalism and ethnicity manifest themselves in the graphs of networks of daily commercial and noncommercial interactions. Other social sciences have valuable insight into the dynamics of breakups, but I don't think it is accurate to think that economics would only be concerning with difference in per capita income of different regions.
Jun8 13y ago
Although it is true that Hans are the majority in all major regions of China, still there are significant ethnic concentrations in regions, e.g. see ethnic autonomous areas listed here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_entities_of_China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_entities_of_China) other than Tibet and Xinjiang. History shows that large empires with regions of diversity can catastrophically divide up after long periods of being a single entity.

tokenadult 13y ago

China proper has a 2000+ year tradition of unification. No. China is a divided country today, if you believe the official view of both the P.R.C. and R.O.C. regimes about Taiwan as a territory of China, and China was divided into territories ruled by warlords as recently as my own parents' childhood. There have been many periods of Chinese history when the territory that is now known as the country of China was ruled by multiple, warring regimes, and interregional ethnic tension among nominally "Han" people in China is well known to anyone who speaks Chinese (as I do) or has studied Chinese history (as I have). I referred to Yugoslavia in my comment to which you kindly reply because this is an example that has been pointed out to me by Chinese social scientists. If one accepts a Marxist framework of economic determinism, as many social scientists in China continue to do, the break-up of Yugoslavia was all but inevitable once regional economic disparities became as great as they were in Yugoslavia in the 1990s. But regional economic disparities in China are now greater, and not least in the large swaths of territory that historically have been part of Tibet and eastern Turkestan. The reason that the Chinese Communist Party is worried about the distribution of wealth is that they don't want a communist revolution, such as the one that originally brought them into power. Yes, the current leaders of China have violent regime change as well as territorial dissolution to worry about. I'm agreed with you there.

anatari 13y ago
Bad comparison because squabbling in China is more like between brothers in that they are trying to gain power over the family, and not trying to break away from it. Chinese Nationalism is probably as strong now as ever, and I think the chances of breakup among the core provinces that aren't already independent are very low.
tanzam75 13y ago
> No. China is a divided country today, if you believe the official view of both the P.R.C. and R.O.C. regimes about Taiwan as a territory of China > If one accepts a Marxist framework of economic determinism, as many social scientists in China continue to do, the break-up of Yugoslavia was all but inevitable once regional economic disparities became as great as they were in Yugoslavia in the 1990s. I said "China proper," not "the current borders of China, including Taiwan and Tibet and all the other acquisitions over the years." I also said that China proper had a "tradition of unification," not "uninterrupted existence as a unified state." They may split apart from time to time, but they keep coming back together. I find it strange that you keep bringing up the "Marxist framework of economic determinism." The Marxists like to view the world through a narrow lens of economics and class struggle. This is not necessarily wrong -- but it doesn't give them the full picture. Slovenia and Croatia were not just the richest republics in Yugoslavia. They'd also been ruled by the Habsburgs for 400 years, used the Latin alphabet, and felt a greater affinity towards Western Europe than towards their brother Slavs. And as for economic determinism, why did every other Yugoslav republic also break away? Bosnia and Macedonia are quite close to Serbia in per-capita GDP. Yes, Yugoslavia had a 4-1 ratio in per-capita GDP among its constituent parts, and so does China. But so does Mexico. So does Brazil. So does India. If those countries haven't broken up, then clearly economics sometimes takes a back seat to other factors, like ethnicity and nationalism.
- rz2k 13y ago
  You don't have to have economics taking a back seat to recognize that per capita income levels are not the only economic statistic. Most likely at a very localized level the issues of nationalism and ethnicity manifest themselves in the graphs of networks of daily commercial and noncommercial interactions. Other social sciences have valuable insight into the dynamics of breakups, but I don't think it is accurate to think that economics would only be concerning with difference in per capita income of different regions.

Jun8 13y ago

Although it is true that Hans are the majority in all major regions of China, still there are significant ethnic concentrations in regions, e.g. see ethnic autonomous areas listed here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_entities_of_China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_entities_of_China) other than Tibet and Xinjiang. History shows that large empires with regions of diversity can catastrophically divide up after long periods of being a single entity.