NOT NEWS BASED - Small thought on China's history, Confucianism and Treason

[Speeder 2]

Praveen, stop derailing the thread with your 2 seemingly eternal questions, however silly they are, will you?


Let me give you a quick recap to put an end once and for all:


“Buddhism is China... why?” The religion has much less intellectual depth than other indigenous Chinese religion/philosophies like Taoism and Confucianism even after it’s been improved upon by the Chinese but a tool for any ruling class. Buddhism has never truly become the main religion in any Han Chinese dynasties but merely a sideshow alongwith other minors. Plus, the size of Han Chinese Buddhists has been massively overstated over the time as burning some incenses in popular temples for tourists at festivals and murmuring "Buddha Bless Me" alone won't make one a true Buddhist by a long shot, surely.


“Democracy…why?” Democracy is in fact the closest cousin to Communism, both feverishly paddled by Jewish political elites ( and/or via their lapdog politicians) since 20th centrury in their tireless crusade to balkanise the rest of the “Goyim”world.

It is because democracy essentially subscribes the notion that any 2 toilet scrappers ( i.e. low IQ underclass - with no disrespect intended however) should and must be more informed, more powerful and hence more a policy-decider for a nation than 1 smacking Nobel Prize winner. It is therefore the perfect tool for a tiny high IQ clan/tribe to tightly control the freedom of the relatively lower IQ mass (not in the reverse order as it appears to promote at surface) in the most efficient manner through a fancy “freedom for all” trick. Democracy, therefore, has become the hallmark of the radical Jewish ideological movements, despite of the fact that it was rejected since time immemorial by most white intellectuals up to late 19th century.

In light of above observations, “Democracy for all mankind”, “Democracy = Freedom” were in fact a renewed “dead man walking”, a bankrupted religion and an ideological campaign led by global Jewish elites no less manipulated than the old time Spanish witch hunt. They represent Jewish self-preserving controlling interests mainly. Elites in any nation with average IQ > 80 have soon found out, when necessary, how to easily manipulate a 1-person-1-vote fanatical Democracy into a corruption rifted cesspool as post-superpower “melting pot” America and their poodles such as India are apparently enjoying.

 

[ephone]

First, it is NOT true that China is not militarily capable of doing so since song Dynasty.

Ming is quite militarily strong and indeed Yongle emperor has given the mogolian powers big blows times and times again. The fleet he sent overseas is also way more powerful than others. Even during its decline periods, its fleet still manage to defeat the japan's fleet and kicked its axx back to the small island.

The reason why China "had less offensive" mindset is that whoever was in control of China already believed that China is the best already and those foreign savage places have nothing China does not have. China rulers have no interest going to those places, let alone conquering activities. If you consider Qing dynasty part of our Chinese history as well, I do personally, Qing indeed has that offensive mind. It solidified its control over Tibet, Xinjiang, Mongolia, Northeast China and Southwest China. In addition, it took back taiwan as well.

It has really much less to do with China's military capability any way.

I will tell you why China "had no offensive" mindset, because it not militarily capable of doing so since Song Dynasty. Qin, Han, Sui and Tang aggressively conquered new territories, especially Han and Tang. Early Ming had a great opportunity to do so, having ships and weaponary so ahead of its time that it made Europeans at the same time looked like cavemen playing with canoes. However, instead of seizing the chance to expand new colonies, it scrapped the entire fleet and issued order to prevent sea trade. The policy was continued under Qing.

It's not that China had no offensive mindset, but rulers attempting to strengthen their control over the people.

 

[S10]

Yeah, shut up, and I know who you are, the slave is a slave, as an excuse you do not want to become a slave of government, but you want to be slaves of other countries. If the government can not provide, and we do should be to re-establish government. only some agents think of foreign talent, you simply are selling out. Do you think the world has free lunch? others will not be in vain, you for the people's life? to your own life, clown! look at the records of Western , and both are naked plunder and exploitation of their occupied country. you actually advocating the West will help you build a powerful nation? you serious, clown? that is incompatible with Western interests. there is no possible. You really do not care about this country, do not care about people, all are an excuse for your own life.

I can guarantee that you took the money from other countries now. I guess right?

See, this is exactly the typical red guard mindset of extremist. Tang borrowed Turkic troops to help them pacify resistance, they must be complete traitors right? The communist party accepted aid from Soviet Union against the KMT government, where was your cry for treason then? Americans accepted French aid during the war of revolution, and you don't seem to fault them for treason against the British. Hell, Sun Yat-sen promised some land to the Japanese in exchange for aid against the Qing dynasty.

The hypocrisy is strong with you, retard. Both your google translated English and double standard is something to laugh at. Am I correct to assume you're one of those 自带狗粮五毛？Don't play with fire unless you want to get burned. I suggest you tone down that red guard clown rhetorics.

Some people are shameless, they can shamelessly proclaim that he is to other people, well, to "the people" life to selling out. Sir, you are not the first traitor, nor the last one.

Those that trumpet their patriotism loudly are often the first to defect, just saying....

And democracy is a panacea. We've heard this before and you think democracies like the US doesn't have corruption.

Of course democracy cannot eliminate corruption, but at the same time it allows for the change of government when the current one is seen as inadequate/corrupt. Those that make peaceful reforms impossible are destined to make violent revolution inevitable.

 

[S10]

First, it is NOT true that China is not militarily capable of doing so since song Dynasty.

Ming is quite militarily strong and indeed Yongle emperor has given the mogolian powers big blows times and times again. The fleet he sent overseas is also way more powerful than others. Even during its decline periods, its fleet still manage to defeat the japan's fleet and kicked its axx back to the small island.

Keep in mind that Ming was only militarily strong during the reign of its first three emperors. The 军户 system soon became corrupt after, and Ming was never able to mount effective expeditions since then. Even capable generals such as 戚继光 was not able to move on to the offensive.

The reason why China "had less offensive" mindset is that whoever was in control of China already believed that China is the best already and those foreign savage places have nothing China does not have. China rulers have no interest going to those places, let alone conquering activities. If you consider Qing dynasty part of our Chinese history as well, I do personally, Qing indeed has that offensive mind. It solidified its control over Tibet, Xinjiang, Mongolia, Northeast China and Southwest China. In addition, it took back taiwan as well.

It has really much less to do with China's military capability any way.

Song was always on the receiving end of nomadic kingdoms such as Liao, Jin, Xi Xia and Mongols. There were several half-assed attempts at trying to retake 燕云十六州, but most of those ended in failure. Region after regions fell to the nomads and there is absolutely no case to say "they think they got the best land" when they had been losing it. Ming was the same case as well, despite a strong start militarily, it was soon harassed by Mongols, Japanese pirates and soon Manchus. Also, sea trade was hugely profitable for the Ming, yet they banned it due to merchants and fishermen were often loose from the control of the Ming court. Yes, Qing did gain some territories, but at the same time they did not actually "control them". These territories were gained by signing treaties with Mongols, Tibetans and Uyghurs. In exchange for their loyalty, they would maintain control of their own affairs in most areas. It was more of a federation than anything else.

Of course, that's not counting how backward Chinese military was compared to Europeans since the mid-Ming. Also, troops were mostly poorly trained and poorly led.

 

[Martian2]

Of course democracy cannot eliminate corruption, but at the same time it allows for the change of government when the current one is seen as inadequate/corrupt. Those that make peaceful reforms impossible are destined to make violent revolution inevitable.

China is not ready for democracy. There are 900 million rural residents (e.g. mostly farmers or peasants). With all due respect to Below_Freezing, those rural residents are not capable/prepared to detect demagoguery and reject parochial interests.

The people, who are calling for democracy in China now, have an agenda of spreading anarchy. The foreign powers and their puppets (e.g. Liu Xiabao, Ai Wei Wei, and others like them) want to transform rising and efficient China into a disorganized mess; like some countries with a dysfunctional/grid-locked parliament (e.g. Italy, India, etc.).

China's government has the support of 88% of the people. It is for the Chinese people themselves to decide the proper form of government that is appropriate for China. The Russians tried Western democracy and their country imploded.

China must continue its current course under the CCP for at least 40 more years. After all Chinese are as rich and well-educated as Westerners then it MAY be appropriate to decide whether more reforms are needed. China is on an unstoppable upward trajectory and changing the most successful government in 5,000 years of Chinese history is the worst idea possible.

----------

China's growing prosperity is clear for all to see.

Countries are like people. They have personalities that reflect the character of a particular country, its culture, history, traditions, and people.

America is a country based on individualism and democracy works very well for Americans. In America, the basic unit of society is the individual and his/her ambitions.

However, looking at Chinese history, it is obvious that China's Confucian culture is a collectivist society. Chinese people are most comfortable working in groups. For the past 30 years, the economic and technological advancements accomplished under the CCP have been astonishing.

Thirty years of breathtaking progress have shown that China has found a socioeconomic system that works best for Chinese people. China will continue to pursue "socialism with Chinese characteristics" for the betterment of all Chinese people (except for the tiny disgruntled democracy agitators working for the CIA).

It is unreasonable to call for democracy in China at this time. Democracy in China under Chiang Kai Shek and the Kuomintang did not work. China was impoverished and invaded by foreigners. Today, under the CCP, China possesses advanced thermonuclear weapons and stealth technology to defend the country.

The CCP is doing a great job and it is governing China with the consent of the people. Someone once said that the CCP is the best government that China has had in the last 5,000 years. 88% of Chinese agree.

----------

Survey: 88 percent of Chinese trust government - People's Daily Online

"Survey: 88 percent of Chinese trust government
16:04, January 27, 2011

On Jan. 26, the 2011 Edelman Trust Barometer, which ranks institutions by the amount of trust people have in them, was released by Edelman, one of the top five global public relations firms. The report shows that China ranked first in the world in terms of trust in government with 88 percent trust.

The tradition in recent years is that Edelman releases the results of the annual Edelman Trust Barometer before start of the annual World Economic Forum meeting.

Trust in government in China has increased by 14 percentage points, up from 74 percent to 88 percent. In addition, the trust in government in Brazil has risen sharply, up from 39 percent in 2010 to 85 percent this year.

However, trust in government fell in the United States from 46 percent to 40 percent.

By People's Daily Online"

----------

2011 Edelman Trust Barometer results

From page 7 of 25 of the Edelman Trust Barometer (see http://www.edelman.com/trust/2011/uploads/...obal%20Deck.pdf)

 

[ephone]

Each empire has its strong and weak time. So during the reign of its first three emperors, that would be enough for expansion if it really wanted to do so.

Look at the past empires, how many of them have been strong for more than three emperors period??? Look at Han:
For West Han empire? Gaozu, wen, jing, Wu??? Can we say the first four emperors ruled a strong empire??? Gaozu was seiged by the Huns and barely got out through negotiation. For the next three emperors, they had to give away their princesses to make peace with the Huns. Wu indeed kicked the huns axxes for certain period and caused a great damage during his mid ruling period. However, during his late period, his army suffered great loss again.

How about East Han? after Guangwu, ming and zhang is just OK. Were those period that strong???

How about Tang? Gaozu, taizong, gaozong/zetian, xuanzong??? It were not even united during Gaozu period. The next three emperors indeed ruled a strong China. However, during Xuanzong period, half of the time China falled into An/Shi rebellions.

So if each dynasty has three or four emperors that ruled a strong China, that is already fantastic. For Qing, it indeed has a period long than that.

About Song, the fundamental reason is that the founding emperor did not trust his generals and take away all of the powers from his generals after the unification of China. Those highest rank officials in the army or border cities were not generals but civil service officials who did not know anything about military strategy, let alone fight with the enemy. In addition, the emperors also sent Eunuchs to monitor the army. It was the emperors policies that made the army weak.

For ming, besides sending army to the north to eradicate the remaining powers of Mongolians, what expeditions did ming emperors take??? If ming was interested, yongle would have started it already.

Keep in mind that Ming was only militarily strong during the reign of its first three emperors. The 军户 system soon became corrupt after, and Ming was never able to mount effective expeditions since then. Even capable generals such as 戚继光 was not able to move on to the offensive.


Song was always on the receiving end of nomadic kingdoms such as Liao, Jin, Xi Xia and Mongols. There were several half-assed attempts at trying to retake 燕云十六州, but most of those ended in failure. Region after regions fell to the nomads and there is absolutely no case to say "they think they got the best land" when they had been losing it. Ming was the same case as well, despite a strong start militarily, it was soon harassed by Mongols, Japanese pirates and soon Manchus. Also, sea trade was hugely profitable for the Ming, yet they banned it due to merchants and fishermen were often loose from the control of the Ming court. Yes, Qing did gain some territories, but at the same time they did not actually "control them". These territories were gained by signing treaties with Mongols, Tibetans and Uyghurs. In exchange for their loyalty, they would maintain control of their own affairs in most areas. It was more of a federation than anything else.

Of course, that's not counting how backward Chinese military was compared to Europeans since the mid-Ming. Also, troops were mostly poorly trained and poorly led.

 

[HongWu]

Nazi 101: Paint a minority group as public enemy.

Wrong. There is a specific causal link between being a traitor and harm to the nation.

I agree strongly with Below Freezing!

On average, Chinese people are too docile and not aggressive enough toward foreigners. The main problem is that historically Chinese did not develop a barbarian slave trade effectively enough. Once you develop a slave trade then you naturally expand outward to find better human resources. When you enslave foreign races, then you develop a feeling of superiority that binds your nation together and makes citizen-to-citizen interactions more harmonious.

I think China did eventually develop some of that in South East Asia using those people as slaves for Han masters. I also think some of that developed in Western China along the Silk Road because China destroyed many Mongol tribes. But these were not enough to trigger the industrial revolution. Before the early industrial revolution both Europe and China were equally advanced or at least close. As soon as Europe triggered the industrial revolution it had a huge advantage over China. The reverse could have happened if China had developed a foreign slave trading network earlier.

By Northern Song dynasty China was essentially reunified and the next step to expand outward would be to enslave barbarian races and increase the standard of living for Chinese people through free labor and then trigger the industrial revolution. But something happened........ something went wrong for China......... we failed to develop a barbarian slave trade network and lost interest in exploration of foreign lands. That was the beginning of the decline. 800 years of slow decline later, we paid the price for our total failure to explore outward continuously.

The final collapse was the failure of the Boxer Rebellion. Before the Boxer Rebellion even though we wouldn't try to enslave foreign races at least we would resist when foreign races tried to enslave us. When the Boxer Rebellion failed, the percentage of Chinese people who wouldn't mind being ruled by foreign races skyrocketed. It reached a high while fighting the Japanese. It came down during the early years of the CCP but now it is much higher. It is hovering at about 15% now.

So the solution for China is not just skinheads robbing foreigners like Below Freezing suggests. China needs to enslave a foreign race like Japan to demonstrate China's superiority (after purging the 15% of traitors to ensure victory). Then naturally Chinese people will be very proud of our civilization and then the percentage of traitors will remain very very low.

 

[below_freezing]

See, this is exactly the typical red guard mindset of extremist. Tang borrowed Turkic troops to help them pacify resistance, they must be complete traitors right? The communist party accepted aid from Soviet Union against the KMT government, where was your cry for treason then? Americans accepted French aid during the war of revolution, and you don't seem to fault them for treason against the British. Hell, Sun Yat-sen promised some land to the Japanese in exchange for aid against the Qing dynasty.

The hypocrisy is strong with you, retard. Both your google translated English and double standard is something to laugh at. Am I correct to assume you're one of those 自带狗粮五毛？Don't play with fire unless you want to get burned. I suggest you tone down that red guard clown rhetorics.


Those that trumpet their patriotism loudly are often the first to defect, just saying....


Of course democracy cannot eliminate corruption, but at the same time it allows for the change of government when the current one is seen as inadequate/corrupt. Those that make peaceful reforms impossible are destined to make violent revolution inevitable.

The KMT was closer to the USSR than the CPC. The CPC was hated by both USSR and USA at the start. Only after the CPC started winning did the Soviets help them.

KMT was so close to the USSR that they trained their soldiers based on the Soviet model, signed the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, and Chiang Ching Kuo was educated in the Soviet Union and married a Russian.

 

[huzihaidao12]

See, this is exactly the typical red guard mindset of extremist. Tang borrowed Turkic troops to help them pacify resistance, they must be complete traitors right? The communist party accepted aid from Soviet Union against the KMT government, where was your cry for treason then? Americans accepted French aid during the war of revolution, and you don't seem to fault them for treason against the British. Hell, Sun Yat-sen promised some land to the Japanese in exchange for aid against the Qing dynasty.

The hypocrisy is strong with you, retard. Both your google translated English and double standard is something to laugh at. Am I correct to assume you're one of those 自带狗粮五毛？Don't play with fire unless you want to get burned. I suggest you tone down that red guard clown rhetorics.


Those that trumpet their patriotism loudly are often the first to defect, just saying....


Of course democracy cannot eliminate corruption, but at the same time it allows for the change of government when the current one is seen as inadequate/corrupt. Those that make peaceful reforms impossible are destined to make violent revolution inevitable.

1, you do not know "the typical red guard mindset of extremist"? They have their problems, but they are far better than the traitor. You want to use this excuse to attack other people, first you know what is it?. If criticized the traitor who is "the typical red guard mindset of extremist", in this world there are too many what you call "the typical red guard mindset of extremist", including Canada and the United States. for another excuse, ok?

2, as I said, this is your selfishness. Today is different and the past. The past China is a semi-colonial era, his own is not enough power, with the help of external forces is a common thing. But even so, by today's standards, the behavior of some Chinese leaders is not appropriate, taking into account that time, a number of defects in behavior can not hide their light. we are sure about their achievements, do not deny their shortcomings. sir, that is "defective", you know what mean? if they are at the same time and you, now, never have any idea of ​​selling out the country. Now is a good time than the semi-colonial era. the past is a pit, today is so clean. How many things we had sacrificed in order to exchange the present life? But your point is that China needs into the pit again, just because of your own fantasy and your own life, so you can be a good excuse to peace of mind enjoy your money? Sir, you simply can not compare and the CCP leaders. they do practical things for the future of China, you are to find an excuse for your life. They are completely different to you. The best know it.

3, "you're one of those bring their own dog food fifty cents?", You see, did not say any arguments, and personal attacks only the beginning, this is really "the typical red guard mindset of extremist". So I guarantee that the words are completely personal point of view, if you want to debate, get out your argument, if you can not take arguments, so that I was right.

4, You put your threats, it is freedom of speech, you talk about democracy, or at least should know it. This is the rule, you can do something to me, other people can do the same thing to you, do not break the rules, sir . Moreover, if China's leaders have the same ideas and you rely on selling state make China become stronger, allowing the Chinese people's lives better. such a ridiculous idea, then I do not need to worry about whether I get burned, because the whole of China will be get burned, and I am sure will not be spared, only for own, I also donot agree so ridiculous idea. democracy? No problem, as long as you make a better change in China, the Chinese people's lives better, that is good, but any idea of ​​selling out the country are insulated and those, you need to come up with some real things, just so the Chinese people can accept.

 

[below_freezing]

China is not ready for democracy. There are 900 million rural residents (e.g. mostly farmers or peasants). With all due respect to Below_Freezing, those rural residents are not capable/prepared to detect demagoguery and reject parochial interests.

The people, who are calling for democracy in China now, have an agenda of spreading anarchy. The foreign powers and their puppets (e.g. Liu Xiabao, Ai Wei Wei, and others like them) want to transform rising and efficient China into a disorganized mess; like some countries with a dysfunctional/grid-locked parliament (e.g. Italy, India, etc.).

China's government has the support of 88% of the people. It is for the Chinese people themselves to decide the proper form of government that is appropriate for China. The Russians tried Western democracy and their country imploded.

China must continue its current course under the CCP for at least 40 more years. After all Chinese are as rich and well-educated as Westerners then it MAY be appropriate to decide whether more reforms are needed. China is on an unstoppable upward trajectory and changing the most successful government in 5,000 years of Chinese history is the worst idea possible.

----------

China's growing prosperity is clear for all to see.

Countries are like people. They have personalities that reflect the character of a particular country, its culture, history, traditions, and people.

America is a country based on individualism and democracy works very well for Americans. In America, the basic unit of society is the individual and his/her ambitions.

However, looking at Chinese history, it is obvious that China's Confucian culture is a collectivist society. Chinese people are most comfortable working in groups. For the past 30 years, the economic and technological advancements accomplished under the CCP have been astonishing.

Thirty years of breathtaking progress have shown that China has found a socioeconomic system that works best for Chinese people. China will continue to pursue "socialism with Chinese characteristics" for the betterment of all Chinese people (except for the tiny disgruntled democracy agitators working for the CIA).

It is unreasonable to call for democracy in China at this time. Democracy in China under Chiang Kai Shek and the Kuomintang did not work. China was impoverished and invaded by foreigners. Today, under the CCP, China possesses advanced thermonuclear weapons and stealth technology to defend the country.

The CCP is doing a great job and it is governing China with the consent of the people. Someone once said that the CCP is the best government that China has had in the last 5,000 years. 88% of Chinese agree.

----------

Survey: 88 percent of Chinese trust government - People's Daily Online

"Survey: 88 percent of Chinese trust government
16:04, January 27, 2011

On Jan. 26, the 2011 Edelman Trust Barometer, which ranks institutions by the amount of trust people have in them, was released by Edelman, one of the top five global public relations firms. The report shows that China ranked first in the world in terms of trust in government with 88 percent trust.

The tradition in recent years is that Edelman releases the results of the annual Edelman Trust Barometer before start of the annual World Economic Forum meeting.

Trust in government in China has increased by 14 percentage points, up from 74 percent to 88 percent. In addition, the trust in government in Brazil has risen sharply, up from 39 percent in 2010 to 85 percent this year.

However, trust in government fell in the United States from 46 percent to 40 percent.

By People's Daily Online"

Democracy is never for someone to decide, it happens. I am a hardcore CPC supporter but I'm realistic. Eventually the CPC must share power to remain stable.

Every time the economy reaches 6000-10000 GDP/capita there will be calls for democracy. There's no theoretical basis for this, it just happens. I'd love to have productive discussion on WHY this happens though.

It happened in the Soviet Union (GDP per capita in 1991 = 6000 USD)
It happened in Taiwan (GDP per capita in 1988 = 6000 USD)
It happened in South Korea (GDP per capita in 1992 = 7500 USD)

These calls for democracy have zero relation to how good the actual policies of the government are. The GDP per capita of the Soviet Union was actually rising fast all the way until its collapse, but it still collapsed. Same for South Korea and Taiwan, both had great government policies but still had democracy anyways.

At this rate, mainland China will hit the 6000 mark in 2014. Even assuming the best case (7500, South Korea) the latest we can delay it is probably 2016. The CPC should be prepared for major social unrest and power sharing regardless of its policies (but bad policies will speed it up). The alternative is to make a stand, but this isn't 1989 and the army won't accept it.

The lesson we need to learn from South Korea is how having others (activists) dictate the terms of democracy will actually make it far worse for the current ruling party. Kim Young Sam was the first democratically elected leader of South Korea. The first thing he did was arrest his predecessor, President Roh Tae Woo, and his predecessor's predecessor Chun Doo Hwan, for treason. Chun was sentenced to death and Roh was sentenced to 22 years. It didn't matter, of course, that Roh Tae Woo successfully hosted the 1988 Seoul Olympics (see the parallel between China and South Korea here?). It only mattered that when vengeful "activists" claim the presidency, as often happens in involuntary power sharing, the nation is thrown into chaos and many former leaders in both politics and business will be purged. This is why Liu was imprisoned for 11 years, no more no less. It was a carefully calibrated prison sentence designed to keep him and other activists out of politics.

However, in attempts to share power, Gorbachev massively failed the Soviet Union. It is difficult to say why South Korea, despite vengeful activists gaining the presidency, still recovered while the Soviet Union in which the CCCP actually tried sharing power collapsed. After the collapse of the USSR, the Communist Party never recovered despite being the only major opposition of the new United Russia neo Nazis.

China must learn from previous examples and use any means necessary to ensure orderly development. Calls for democracy will become inevitable. I'm not saying whether that is right or wrong but it will happen. I think we have much to learn from Japan. And I think Singapore will quickly become unstable when the Lee family loses control. The fascist (literally; their party symbol is a copy of the Union of British Fascists's) PAP can't hold onto power forever.

There is no permanent ruling party - Chiang Ching Kuo.

 

[Martian2]

Below_Freezing, I cannot disagree with you more. The CCP must remain in power for at least the next 40 years, because that is the length of time required to build China's infrastructure (e.g. nuclear power plants, airports, etc.), to urbanize (e.g. build countless mega-cities), to educate China's next generation to world standards, to shift from an export economy to a domestic-demand economy, to militarize to match U.S. military power, and to shift from a manufacturing-dominated to a mixed manufacturing/service economy.

In other words, the people of China need the CCP to bulldoze its way to building China's nationwide high-speed-rail network and move millions more people to build the mega-dams that China needs.

None of these necessary tasks can be accomplished without the CCP.

The strength of my arguments is based on the accuracy of my predictions. I am predicting that China will not become a democracy by 2016. Furthermore, based on the 88% support by the Chinese people, I am confident in predicting that the CCP will remain in power until at least 2049 (e.g. the 100th anniversary of New China). If I am proven incorrect, I will not make a single additional political post on this forum.

The CCP led the Chinese people out of poverty. The CCP brought modern technologies to China. The CCP led China into space. It is wrong to suggest that democracy is a better form of government than the CCP. Democracy is failing in America (e.g. gridlock in Congress, federal budget deficit and debt spiraling out of control, potholed roads everywhere, etc.). The Washington Consensus is in disrepute worldwide.

I am very unhappy that you are a closet democracy agitator.

Deng said, "it does not matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice." Similarly, it does not matter whether you label the CCP as a nominally communist government, a socialist government with Chinese characteristics, or the Chinese Capitalist Party, it only matters that the CCP is doing a fantastic job (which needs to continue unabated).

 

[中国万岁-ProsperThroughCo-]

I want China to be have its own model, and not copy western democracies. Democracies have their pros and cons, but for several reasons, democracy in China will be too inefficient. I would like a modern Chinese meritocracy instead, based both on solid traditional values and good modern values. I believe CCP can transform into a such meritocracy (is it already transforming?).

In order to prosper, China doesn't need different politcal parties. That will only encourage the politicians to take populist actions in order to get the votes.

What China needs, is a well-educated people so the people and the officials are competent. In that way, the people can take good decisions. It also needs to teach the people correct ethical behavior even more.

In order to reduce corruption, the bureaucracy should be transparent. Penalties for corruption must be harsh and realistic. Rule of law to be more upheld.

These things take time to improve, but it is all what China needs. Democracy isn't.

 

[CardSharp]

You need a educated and learned populace if you want good politicians. Give it time and have a bit of patience.

 

[Martian2]

"Author: SampanViking
Posted 01 May 2011 - 11:02 AM

The key fact about all of the "dissidents" is they have no natural constituency inside the PRC. They are not the leaders of a large grass-roots movement and do not represent anyone but themselves.

The only relevance they have is abroad with the Western media and "certain" agencies. To that end they are not a factor in domestic politics, but rather pawns in international relations. They have been arrested, not because they have the capacity to lead significant dissent in the PRC, but because they have the capacity (in collusion with the Western Media) to create the illusion of such an effect on Western television.

This debases the value and the desirability of Chinese State Capitalism in the eyes of the Western citizen. Unfettered, they can create mischief by being presented as "spokespeople" of the Chinese citizenry. However, once removed from public view, there is no image on TV and therefore no story. The detentions, including that of Ai Wei Wei, have not registered in the public consciousness of the West by one jot!

Since the Chinese Government understand this, they have been able to turn the tables and use these people as pawns in their own game of international relations.

Yes, there have been negotiations between China and the US on the subject of "human rights" in their interactions. Though one dissident was released, another was arrested. What is the cost to the PRC to release Teng Biao? Well, nothing!....He is a Chinese citizen on Chinese soil and can be rearrested at a moment's notice, if desired.

What did it cost the US to persuade the CCP to agree to his release? That is the relevant question. Yes, Teng is free. However, the moment he tries to re-offend, he will be re-arrested. What are the consequences of granting his freedom? There are none. Nobody in the West cared that he was arrested and they care even less that he has been released.

The US has boxed itself into a corner. Nobody cares about these people and their social significance in China is zero. The West pretends to care about these people (who are detained and hold themselves hostage to fortune) by having to try and negotiate on their behalf.

For the dissidents, they are slowly realising that they are not a vanguard bringing western values to China, but a sad group of naive fools that have condemned themselves to a repeating hell of a life of revolving prison doors. Rather than gaining concessions from Beijing, they only serve as pawns for Beijing to win concessions from Washington.

Of course, Washington will tire of this game in due course and the prison doors will stop revolving. Many of the dissidents will find themselves on the wrong side of it!"

 

[below_freezing]

Below_Freezing, I cannot disagree with you more. The CCP must remain in power for at least the next forty years, because that is the length of time required to build China's infrastructure (e.g. nuclear power plants, airports, etc.), to urbanize (e.g. build countless mega-cities), to educate China's next generation to world standards, to shift from an export economy to a domestic-demand economy, to militarize to match U.S. military power, and to shift from a manufacturing-dominated to a mixed manufacturing/service economy.

In other words, the people of China needs the CCP to bulldoze its way to building China's nationwide high-speed-rail network and move millions more people to build the mega-dams that China needs.

None of these necessary tasks can be accomplished without the CCP.

The strength of my arguments is based on the accuracy of my predictions. I am predicting that China will not become a democracy by 2016. Furthermore, based on the 88% support by the Chinese people, I am confident in predicting that the CCP will remain in power until at least 2049 (e.g. the 100th anniversary of New China). If I am proven incorrect, I will not make a single additional political post on this forum.

The CCP led the Chinese people out of poverty. The CCP brought modern technologies to China. The CCP led China into space. It is wrong to suggest that democracy is a better form of government than the CCP. Democracy is failing in America (e.g. gridlock in Congress, federal budget deficit and debt spiraling out of control, potholed roads everywhere, etc.). The Washington Consensus is in disrepute worldwide.

I am very unhappy that you are a closet democracy agitator.

Deng said, "it does not matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice." Similarly, it does not matter whether you label the CCP as a nominally communist government, a socialist government with Chinese characteristics, or the Chinese Capitalist Party, it only matters that the CCP is doing a fantastic job (which needs to continue unabated).

I am not saying it is desirable to transition to democracy by 2016. I am saying it is INEVITABLE base on past history. Just like the world will definitely end in 4 billion years, it is not desirable but inevitable. There are many parallels between South Korea and China's history. The South Korean military dictatorship was far more repressive than the CPC could ever be. In suppressing democracy, South Korea was one of the most active anti-democratic nations in the world.

Jeju Uprising - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gwangju Democratization Movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deng was the Chinese version of Park Chung Hee. Both were free market believers that believed in the state taking the lead in industrialization. But after Deng, no Chun Doo Hwan appeared, until perhaps Hu.

You are right that no one in China cares about these activists. Guess what, no one in South Korea cared about Kim Young Sam but he became president and sentenced the previous president to death!

I'm just going to say this: I want the CPC to remain as the sole party in power, but it will not. That doesn't mean it won't remain a party in power. Even with free elections the CPC will likely win in a landslide especially if the opposition is KMT. That can only happen if the CPC democratizes slowly, gradually, and continues removing radicals like Liu and Ai. If democracy is forced on the CPC like it was forced on South Korea and the Soviet Union, the end result may very well be the rise of radical activists or Neo Nazis.