Chinese government, nervous about comparisons between Tahrir and Tiananmen

[CardSharp]

ya but i do feel that the chinese government is too paranoid about any issue that challenges their rule. they should confront the tiananman head on instead of putting it off and hiding it. it may hurt at first but it's good for the long term.

I'll explain a bit what happened there. It was the 80's and with market reforms and opening some people were getting rich from new policies and some people stayed poor. In a nation that used to equality being one of the highest virtue (Mao and other top leader was paid about 300 yuan a month), this didn't sit well. People left out were angry, and this anger was fanned because the children of the leaders like Deng, were like getting rich using their parent's names.

It came to ahead in 1989 after the death of Hu Yaobang a much beloved leader with young people (this is following a pattern of protests after the death of popular leader, it happen also when Zhou Enlai died in the 74) and so mainly university students and urban residents of Beijing + other large cities, came out openly in protest against this graft by the children of top leaders (really also against the idea some are getting rich whiles others stayed poor). It started out as a protest against this specific issue (+ the greater discontent about inequality), it morphed into a movement for democracy. But the student leaders at the head of this, were really naive and in someway pretty despicable people. They have no realistic plans for how to govern and refused the many attempt at comprise (even from the reformist leaders within the party).

Then came the tragic day of 1986 june 4th. The Tienanmen square sit in enter 40 something days, previous attempts at bring in the army failed when the people blocked the trucks from bring in troops, worse of all perhaps was Mikhail Gorbachov's visit to China. The reformist soviet leader was on a state visit. He led the normalization of relations with China and this trip was of the utmost importance, because the student still occupied the square, he could not to brought into the great hall of the people and given the ceremonies he was due as an important leader. This was seen as a international sign of Beijing losing control.

It couldn't go on the leaders thought. So the army was told to clear the square at any cost. A tragic mistake. A force trained for full out battle, armed with traditional battlefield equipment was sent to do the job of what should have been riot police. But China didn't have such a force and it inevitable bloodshed was the outcome.

It was an over-reaction, but we can also why they did it. Examine the historical context that was relevant, the Soviet union was crumbling, Eastern Europe was alight with revolution, the western media printed gleefully stories of China's immanent downfall.

In the end, it was largely a revolution of the privileged (young university and urban dweller), the rest of country of peasants and farm workers had more pressing day to day needs to look to and was largely apathetic to the intellectual movement of democratic protester. They didn't offer any realistic alternatives, democracy yes but how many of China's farmers (the majority back then) even knew what democracy was. The protesters had legitimate grievances but their solution wasn't feasible.

 

[Aramsogo]

We can also look at this quantitatively, since I'm a finance quant.

The CCP is nothing more than another Han Chinese dynasty (good or bad).

The average Chinese dynasty lasts 237 years with a standard deviation of 150 years. Median is 225 years.

If you exclude the two non-Han dynasty (Mongol Yuan and Manchu Qing), the average Chinese dynasty lasts 252.5 with a standard dev of 160 years. Median is 229 years.

If you also exclude the Qin Dynasty (which is a statistical outlier at only 15 years), you get an average length of 286 years for the 7 remaining Han dynasties with a 139 year standard deviation. Median is 276 years.

The CCP is about 60 years old. Based on historical observations, it probably has another 150 years left easy.

 

[below_freezing]

We can also look at this quantitatively, since I'm a finance quant.

The CCP is nothing more than another Han Chinese dynasty (good or bad).

The average Chinese dynasty lasts 237 years with a standard deviation of 150 years. Median is 225 years.

If you exclude the two non-Han dynasty (Mongol Yuan and Manchu Qing), the average Chinese dynasty lasts 252.5 with a standard dev of 160 years. Median is 229 years.

If you also exclude the Qin Dynasty (which is a statistical outlier at only 15 years), you get an average length of 286 years for the 7 remaining Han dynasties with a 139 year standard deviation. Median is 276 years.

The CCP is about 60 years old. Based on historical observations, it probably has another 150 years left easy.

I disagree somewhat. CPC is far more stable than a dynasty due to no one having absolute power and most of all, social mobility. Anyone can become the President, but by definition only royal family members can be Emperor. It will take 30-40 years of hard work but you can do it, literally anyone, and there are even more than 1 chance. Even a dirt poor farmer from Anhui (Hu Jintao) can become president. Theoretically anyone can become president of USA too but in reality, it's a Wall Street club.

I'd say the lower bound was 150 (CPC being a typical dynasty) and upper bound, infinite, as we institute more democracy and increase social mobility even more. The whole idea that the government being separate and just a leech on top of the people is ingrained in Chinese thought for thousands of years, but this is changing. The government being directly responsible and directly accountable from the lowest to highest levels is quite a new idea and has taken place for only 15 years.

 

[CardSharp]

I disagree somewhat. CPC is far more stable than a dynasty due to no one having absolute power and most of all, social mobility. Anyone can become the President, but by definition only royal family members can be Emperor. It will take 30-40 years of hard work but you can do it, literally anyone, and there are even more than 1 chance. Even a dirt poor farmer from Anhui (Hu Jintao) can become president. Theoretically anyone can become president of USA too but in reality, it's a Wall Street club.

I'd say the lower bound was 150 (CPC being a typical dynasty) and upper bound, infinite, as we institute more democracy and increase social mobility even more. The whole idea that the government being separate and just a leech on top of the people is ingrained in Chinese thought for thousands of years, but this is changing. The government being directly responsible and directly accountable from the lowest to highest levels is quite a new idea and has taken place for only 15 years.

Yes that is the hope. Regular successions to provide stability. Also I'd like to note that power has really become more spread out in anytime in Chinese history. Hu Jintao is the president but we can safely say that he is not a central figure in China.

 

[Aramsogo]

I agree with the lower bound of at least 150 years too. But empires fall for many reasons: mismanagement, rebellion, overextention, bankruptcy, foreign invasion & in the modern era, nuclear war (Japan). I think that now that the CCP has survived the infant mortality stage, it can survive another 150 years easily based on 3,000 years of Chinese data. Also, Chinese empires fall usually from peasant revolts or foreign invasion, not from the "Twitter set" of students. The CCP's most vulnerable time was during the Korean War when MacCarthur wanted to use Nukes. But it survived that incident and can look forward to at least another 150 years.

 

[below_freezing]

Well, with the declining rural population and increasing social welfare, peasant-worker revolts will become less likely. With increasing military power, foreign invasion becomes less likely. The revolts and invasions were however symptomes not root causes, the real problem is corruption. China can never be defeated militarily without internal traitors.

 

[fallstuff]

I have seen few interesting article stating democratic movement sort of a thing in the past. The economy is doing wonderful, and I don't think anybody would want to rock the boat. If it ain't broken don't fix it.

People will demand more actualization of their lives when they want it. Right now it seems like Chinese folks are not loosing sleep over it.

 

[cross1993]

I agree with the CPC is another Han Chinese dynasty.
I think that if the CPC end, Reason will not be democracy or foreign invasions. Most likely is extreme nationalism or worsening corruption.
Now the Right wing CPC(Deng Xiaoping sent) governance in China, if the CPC end, The most likely is the Left wing CPC(Maoist) ruling, they can get the support of the armed forces. Because nationalism, the Left wing CPC is also very influential in the civil, they are the largest anti-government groups.
For example:
? >> ?
?????
东方红网
??-???-?????
?????-?????????!
http://bbs.anti-cnn.com/
ë
½â·ÅÇøµÄÌì ÎÄÒÕÆÀÂÛÍø
毛泽东 - 纪念毛泽东，民间第一网站
???

Even the Left wing CPC have a senior official as a leader. For example --- Chongqing Mayor, Bo Xilai.

Chongqing:

the Right wing CPC leader --- Guangdong Party Secretary, Wang Yang.

Guangdong:

 

[below_freezing]

corruption can be fixed. the problem is foreign invasion.

my hope is, if china is attacked and losing that the CPC has the guts to nuke back and nuke back hard. hard enough to wipe out humanity. because losing a nuclear war has only 2 consequences:

1.) Our ICBMs are shot down, enemy ICBMs destroy 80% of our population, and China ends as a civilization.
2.) Our government is scared to nuke back, the enemy occupies Beijing, dissolves the party, sets up a puppet government, and repeats the Nanjing tragedy all over China. China ends as a civilization.

Therefore the only 100% sure way for China to survive as a civilization is to have enough weapons of mass destruction to end the world.

 

[RazPaK]

I think the majority of Chinese are happy with thier countries direction. Simple answer is that the Chinese are too economically sound to have a revolution at this time, or any time soon.

 

[Tractor]

I'll explain a bit what happened there. It was the 80's and with market reforms and opening some people were getting rich from new policies and some people stayed poor. In a nation that used to equality being one of the highest virtue (Mao and other top leader was paid about 300 yuan a month), this didn't sit well. People left out were angry, and this anger was fanned because the children of the leaders like Deng, were like getting rich using their parent's names.

It came to ahead in 1989 after the death of Hu Yaobang a much beloved leader with young people (this is following a pattern of protests after the death of popular leader, it happen also when Zhou Enlai died in the 74) and so mainly university students and urban residents of Beijing + other large cities, came out openly in protest against this graft by the children of top leaders (really also against the idea some are getting rich whiles others stayed poor). It started out as a protest against this specific issue (+ the greater discontent about inequality), it morphed into a movement for democracy. But the student leaders at the head of this, were really naive and in someway pretty despicable people. They have no realistic plans for how to govern and refused the many attempt at comprise (even from the reformist leaders within the party).

Then came the tragic day of 1986 june 4th. The Tienanmen square sit in enter 40 something days, previous attempts at bring in the army failed when the people blocked the trucks from bring in troops, worse of all perhaps was Mikhail Gorbachov's visit to China. The reformist soviet leader was on a state visit. He led the normalization of relations with China and this trip was of the utmost importance, because the student still occupied the square, he could not to brought into the great hall of the people and given the ceremonies he was due as an important leader. This was seen as a international sign of Beijing losing control.

It couldn't go on the leaders thought. So the army was told to clear the square at any cost. A tragic mistake. A force trained for full out battle, armed with traditional battlefield equipment was sent to do the job of what should have been riot police. But China didn't have such a force and it inevitable bloodshed was the outcome.

It was an over-reaction, but we can also why they did it. Examine the historical context that was relevant, the Soviet union was crumbling, Eastern Europe was alight with revolution, the western media printed gleefully stories of China's immanent downfall.

In the end, it was largely a revolution of the privileged (young university and urban dweller), the rest of country of peasants and farm workers had more pressing day to day needs to look to and was largely apathetic to the intellectual movement of democratic protester. They didn't offer any realistic alternatives, democracy yes but how many of China's farmers (the majority back then) even knew what democracy was. The protesters had legitimate grievances but their solution wasn't feasible.

I don't know why some data obviously are wrong,for chinese it is not easy to make mistakes about it.
Both1976 and 1989 are unnormal years for chinese.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

U ppl those who r supporting China are currently staying in Japan or HK.
U ppl enjoy all kinds of freedom there coz they r democratic countries

I can access each and every website available.
Can u Chinese do that ??

Hey genius, Hong Kong is NOT a country. Hong Kong is a CITY within the nation of China.

Hong Kong is not a democracy, and never was. Sure, we have "multi-party elections"... but we can't elect the top leaders of the country, and we don't have universal suffrage.

Now compare Hong Kong to India and tell me what your democracy is really worth.

 

[tanlixiang28776]

Hey genius, Hong Kong is NOT a country. Hong Kong is a CITY within the nation of China.

Hong Kong is not a democracy, and never was. Sure, we have multi-party elections... but we can't elect the top leaders of the country, and we don't have universal suffrage.

Oh no Hong Kong isn't a democracy. It must be a horrible backwards place with no laws, corruption, and human rights abuses. Oh wait........

 

[CardSharp]

corruption can be fixed. the problem is foreign invasion.

my hope is, if china is attacked and losing that the CPC has the guts to nuke back and nuke back hard. hard enough to wipe out humanity. because losing a nuclear war has only 2 consequences:

1.) Our ICBMs are shot down, enemy ICBMs destroy 80% of our population, and China ends as a civilization.
2.) Our government is scared to nuke back, the enemy occupies Beijing, dissolves the party, sets up a puppet government, and repeats the Nanjing tragedy all over China. China ends as a civilization.

Therefore the only 100% sure way for China to survive as a civilization is to have enough weapons of mass destruction to end the world.

China still goes by a doctrine of minimal credible deterrence.

 

[below_freezing]

the definition of minimal is very flexible. the bar must be raised higher for some extremist countries that love to export thier philosophy and enforce it by force the same way Nazi Germany did.