Russia threw off the mantle of an overpowering Monarchy in the 1918 revolution. Some may say they replaced it with something even worse *snif*. Thats certainly true. However here we are 90 years later and arguably Russia is changing - slowly - but it is changing, to a more "liberal" society. Whilst external pressures had their impact, it was in the end, the people themselves who said "enough", and forced change, fortunately without a major civil war.

The declaration of independence was 1776. Its easy to gloss over the traumatic 100 years that followed, culminating in a civil war that tore the Country apart. That was as a result of severe differences of views within the Country, in the end only a civil war could sort it out. Whilst it was not a bed of roses after that, fundamentaly things moved forward from there to what is in place now.

China began the long process of change when it overthrew the last Autocratic member of the Qing Dynasty, Empress Dowager Longyu, in favour of Emperor Puyi, in the 1912 revolution. There followed a torturous road of change from the last Qing Emperor, Puyi, who rule reflected the forces of change from the people themselves, to the culminating Chinese Civil War 1946-1950. Here we are now, nearly 100 years since the last really autocratic Emperor, was replaced, and inarguably the direction of change in China is towards a liberal democratic model - not there yet, but its getting there.

In all three cases you have around 100 years evolution and change from the early heady days of people inspired and led revolution, to what is in place now. Some got there quicker than others eg the US - but they had a flying start as basicly the original colonials were "democratic" in outlook and had a hundred years of a democratic English parliament to fall back on when framing their preferred institutions. Its hard to put in place proper institutions if the driving force behind the violent forces of change had relatively few "free" intellectuals available to help shape it.

Even The UK (which is where I am), arguably had the same 100 years change. The English civil war in the 17th Century, tore us apart, significantly the Parliamentarians were overthrown 10 years later, and the monarchy returned - however, it returned as a constitutional monarchy, as it remains today. 100 years later the original examples of Democracy as we know it today landed in North America.

Change takes time. We need to keep an Historical perspective, its too easy to say what is now in various Countries, compared to what we have now "in the West". It would be arrogant in the extreme to insist we all evolve to the same Institutional Model, the latter has to reflect Regional Cultures - one size does not fit all. It takes time to evolve, the US and UK had their traumatic times 300/400 years ago in the process of change. China is going through the same process. Jingoism is a good thing to a degree, unrestrained jingoism is repugnant.

It took a significant number of generations to effect change in UK, Russia and the US. It will be the same for China - to expect that Change to happen in one generation is absurd. As is the notion that somehow you can "compel" 1.4 Billion people to adopt, overnight, practices that took generations to evolve in other Countries. We should help where we can, and where they are willing to receive help, in other aspects we should back off - as we expected other Countries to do when we went through the growing pains. There is no magic wand, a Country has to go through growing pains if it is to be stronger when it come out the other end.

Other Countries who are in the fortunate position of having already changed and have the basic human freedoms in place, should recognise that, help not hinder, advise when asked, not yell and scream for local Political gain. The latter slows progress as it raises barriers to the exchange of information, finance and help that would speed up the process. We all would and do, get seriously Hissed Off if our Neighbor next door kept pointing out what we were doing wrong ..... whether they were right or wrong ..... there is no difference at National level, whatever facts, so called realities or emotional justification anyone puts on it.

The best thing we can all do to help China in its Change process, is help when asked, advise when asked, be known to be there to help if asked, and stop the arrogant "we are better than you" outbursts that conveniently put to one side all the growing pains that we went through.

Regards
Zy

Yesterday, I attended the ceremony at Tian An Men square to mourn the victims and injured of the earthquake. It was a very emotional time. The feeling in the whole country is of great sadness. We are watching the TV every day for news of hope in the time of darkness.

I had originally wanted to write about the miracle survivors, the tragedies of the large number of people who have to chop of their arms and legs to be rescued, the high proportion of children who are victims. But I think these things are on news everywhere.

One thing that Zydor wrote triggered a thought which was more personal:



China stopped the Olympic torch relay for 3 days to memorize the earthquake. On that, I wanted to share a personal story, though it has the chance of making myself evil.

I have been to Tibet once for a holiday. It was fun. We had a pretty Tibetan girl guide who took us to temples, galleries, gardens, markets, restaurants. We ate Tibetan food, drank Tibetan alcohol, bought souvenirs, took photos. At bars and restaurants, we had discussions about politics, government, the Dalai Lama etc. and I found the local people intelligent, interesting and friendly.

Never though did I ever feel a deep 'political connection' with Tibet. Never was a 'vital part of the motherland'. It was just a place I went for a holiday where I met some nice people and learned some history and culture.

Later, I saw the pictures of what happened to the Olympic torch in France and England and the US. I was particularly angered by the attack on the wheelchair girl. I read that the IOC wanted to cancel the torch relay because it was too political.

Suddenly, I was inflamed. To me, Tibet suddenly became a fundamental part of China. In my heart I wanted the torch relay to be extended a hundred days and run up and down the Eiffel Tower and across Big Ben.

If you ask me deeply, my emotion was not because I suddenly developed a great pride for Tibet or a deep connection to the Olympics (I don't even have one ticket bought). It was because other people were aggressively criticising China about Tibet and the Oympics - and I wanted to be aggressive back. I felt pushed so I wanted to also push hard.

I'm not proud of this admission, it's not a very good reason to justify actions. I reacted with emotion and anger instead of reason and logic. Burn the torch forever!!! (because other people say we should stop). Was I right to have these feelings? Probably no. But I think it is a human response for me - which even with my education, my reading, my intelligence - I could not resist.

Today, I am 100% in favour of the idea to cancel the torch. There is such sadness, such pain in the country - the idea of a torch relay to show 'happiness' or (secretly) to spite others has no steam. Furthermore, the same countries that were once attacking China, are now rushing to give aid and money and blankets and medicine. How can I feel anger when they bring candles in our time of darkness?

There is one group that is very much pushing to keep the torch running. It is Coca Cola - the primary sponsor of the torch run. From a business view, I do understand - it has paid X Million dollars a day for Y days of full media coverage of happy Chinese people running the torch through all our major cities. So I don't want to paint them as the evil Satan - it is just business. But from a spirit idea - to push for the torch to run and to ask for money back because there are 3 days less of no torch, seems very uncomfortable. Coca Cola has two supporters - Samsung and Lenovo the 2nd sponsors of the torch run.

In closing and on a semi-related issue of Taiwan and Mainland China: my Taiwanese friends and I often talk politics. They make an excellent point which I always remember. Unification is like the weather God getting a small man to remove a heavy coat. If the god throws rain and ice and lighting, then the man just wants to hold the coat tighter. But if the god lets the sun come out, the man will take off the coat himself.

Change is slow. Always too slow. We want things to be the new way immediately. It is reasonable that people, countries and governments will make comments and actions to affect others. I think the challenging part is to consider what comments and actions, will actually have the desired effect.

do you still call it that? or is this diffrent from were all those democraci protestors died?

They must not cancel it, its precisely what a very very small minority of "protesters" want to happen. A lot of this has been caused by a Media Feeding Frenzy. The latter know perfectly well that such an issue will get emotion rolling, drama sells etc. Once the Torch moved on, people here went "back to normal", it was out of the media, and everyone got off the bandwagon.

In my view anyone using the Olympics as a protest tool is nuts - in the long term it will do more damage to their particular cause than anything else. The US pull out from Moscow was a disaster - it had huge long term effects for them, no one will do that again in a hurry. The Institution of the Olympics is far far more important than any issue that anyone can cook up - real or imagined. The IOC know that, I just hope they hold the line, or else everything in the world thats in the Public Eye is up for grabs by the minority protesters out for a short term publicity hit. It must be held in the same regard as we hold our homes, a haven from the pressures of the world out there where can have some unrestrained fun.

There is a time and place for everything, manipulation of the main Events that brings Countries together is not it. Will attempts ever stop - of course not, particularly Politically inspired ones, but resist them we must. Will there be causes that might get short term benefit from such actions - for sure, there are many emotional and worthwhile issues around.

However the Olympics is, and must remain, "Neutral Ground". People can and will spin doctor what they like about it, but physical disruption must firmly remain an absolute No-No.

In my view the Torch disruption came across as insane meddling by a bunch of silly people - which is sad as they were trying to put across a valid viewpoint. They looked sad and silly, because even if the campaign succeeded and the Olympics was crippled, so what? Who the hell gains? Its the latter that these short sighted clowns cant get their head round.

Regards
Zy

Mightygoobi said and Zydor replied:



I'm sorry I was not clear Zydor - the torch has been cancelled for 3 days only - not forever.

One thing that is a concern to me - I agree with you that Tibet and it's relationship with the mainland government is an issue that must be resolved. I mentioned in an earlier post that there is this major issue about Tibet 'to have greater autonomy' and there are conflicting informations on what that means. Solving this meaning I think is a key to Tibetan / Chinese governmet relations. And I'm worried that the torch protests may have hurt more than help the issue.

Prior to the protests, I thought that most Han Chinese were neutral to positive regarding the Tibetan people. Tibet was an exotic location to go for a holiday or a spiritual retreat in a temple. Tibetan people speak a different language, eat different food and dance really well. So we should go there and learn more and help them if they need it.

There are many charity causes to support Tibet things that common people have been doing like 'build schools in Tibet', 'dig wells in Tibet', 'sponsor a Tibetan child's medicine', 'plant treets in Tibet'. There were special Tibet football games and letter writing projects for school children. There was the basic understanding of some political problem with some Tibet group leader and the mainland Chinese government, but I thought most people felt that's for the political leaders to sort out. As a common person, Tibet is a pretty interesting and nice place with good people.

After the protests, Tibet has this association with 'violent foreign protestors, rioting people wanting to attack China'. I have heard that donations have dropped off, sympathy and interest has decreased and support for greater co-operation between Han and Tibetan has diminished. That makes me sad - I don't think Tibetans should have the blanket label of 'attackers of the Olympic Torch'. I think they have much to offer China, as does each tribe in China.

I do understand that media attention can be useful to raise awareness. I query if the protests have really improved Tibetan life in the end - which is I think the goal that everyone wants.

I think you might be right Carbon016 - I don't think anyone wants their home to be seen as nothing only a tourist destination. I don't think people in the east like Beijing and Shanghai know much about Tibet at all (at least I don't). I think to say I see it as a tourist destination is accurate.

I'm not sure if I can knowledgably comment enough on your idea on 'smaller territory being gobbled up by bigger nation'. I don't know enough on that - but the idea sounds sensible. I had no idea about Hawaii and I've never been there. I guess I might be sucked into the 'aloha aloha have a bikini girl put flowers on your neck' media. Is there really a "Free Hawaii" movement?

Regarding Tibet, I have a purely personal idea that the greater resentment of the older generation Tibetan comes from the perception (or perhaps the reality) that the 'good old days' were better - all the new things coming in are things I don't need, all the old things going out are things I like and wanted.

As I tried to say before, I can sympathise why a older Tibetan farmer might be upset that his goats need to be moved to install the new wireless internet antennae - and blames his reduced lifestyle on the stupid new internet thing provided by the government.

I think the idea that the old times were better is not just an 'older generation Tibetan' issue. I think it might be an 'older generation of China' issue.

Often, I've seen that 'old Communist China' was very heavily control. I think this point is fair. But I think the other coin side is that control came with the idea of providing welfare. Every person had free or very heavily subsidised housing (1 US dollar a month), food, medicine, entertainment, guarantee of a job, if anything broken down it was repaired for free. If you just carry on, then everything will be provided for you.

(That was the general theory - there were of course times it went terribly wrong e.g. famine under Mao. There was also corruption whereby big boss gets all the luxury and little worker gets nothing. And of course there was the history of the cultural revolution - so I don't want to paint the old times as heaven. Just that there was some elements that older generation people liked.)

So, if you growing up in that generation and then suddenly come to a time when I need to pay for my own food, buy my own medicine, rent my own apartment, understand insurance, mortgage, compound interest etc. that's all pretty scary. For older Tibetans, I can guess it must be even more scarier since I must do it in a language I don't really understand. So I would be likely to blame the government for this new complicated life that is supposedly more "modern" and "free".

General Etrius made the point that I should not think like a Middle Class Chinese but more like a poor Chinese person who had things taken away by the Communist government. With respect, I feel that it is the poor Chinese person who is more likely than me to want the old days and go back to the time of 'control' - a time when I didn't need to worry about market rates, inflation or international competition. I grow carrots, I give the carrots to the government, I get provided for. But today, I need to fight to sell my carrots at a high price, I need to cut my costs to sell cheaper than the other carrot farmer, I need to make deal with the truck company to transport my carrots etc. If I was in that position, I suppose all this 'new Freedom' is not at all what I want.

All this new freedom, capitalism, open markets, WTO, etc. is good for me personally - My generation is getting jobs at international companies, getting paid in US dollars or at US rates, travelling to other countries and working with partners in London or Paris or Frankfurt.

To me, Harvard or Oxford or Yale is important. A PhD from the Sorbonne is meaningful and exciting. A Masters from MIT is impressive.

I am interest in the history of the French revolution, of the political movements in Eastern Europe or the issues in Uganda. Now they teach English and French and Japanese at school - not Russian. I have access to news from around the world in languages I understand.

I LIKE the fact that if I work harder, I get paid more - and my fruits are not shared amongst 100 people working next to me. I want to choose my own doctor, my own bank, my own insurance etc. So all the encouragement from the west about Chinese government needing to be more and more "free" is all good from my point of view. I like this style and if you want to call it 'freedom', then it does suit me.

But I never lived in the 'old' era. And I can't properly understand their thinking. And when I read about those that did, I get a feeling that they might prefer the old times - when life was more simple. What we might call "over control", they would perhaps call "more simple and more community and more welfare". And my guessing is that some the older generation thinks like that - whether Tibetan or Han (or Mongolian, or Hui...)

The more I read about China in this tread the more I wonder what about China other then the title "communist" is communist about china anymore?

Spacepony said:



For me, the key point is what is meant by the word "communist". To use Zydor's words, what do we mean by the 'label'? It is a word that carries a lot of emotion for different people. I'm sorry I can not give a short and precise answer Spacepony.

The 'text-book' definition of a "class-less society, wealth shared by the State, and society led by the working class" sounds very nice - but it's an ideal which is as difficult to achieve as democracy being "a system of political sovereignty where by every citizen has a fair and equal right to participate in the election of a government". I have never believed either ideal is or ever have been completely true.

The 'official' definition for the Chinese government style that appears in our media is something like "a socialist framework adopting a market economy with special Chinese characteristics in service of the People". I have no idea what that mean - and it sounds even more weird in Mandarin than English.

Some might define Communist as 'a system of government where most activities are nationalised' I mentioned in an earlier post that some older Chinese think 'Communist gave me welfare, and organised a much simpler and easier life than today by taking care of all the difficult things'. Those days I think are certainly gone (or very much going). Today, you are required to look after yourself (financially, educationally, healthy, legally) much more than in the past. You are paid a higher wage, but must pay your own rent etc. Our state-run companies are one by one being more 'free marketised'.

Our former 'flag bearer' state run organizatios now have boards of directors, public share listings, offer dividends and hold shareholder meetings, operate under WTO rules. Many have fired large parts of their workforce as they move from being a 'national guarantee of jobs to all' to a 'partially government run corporate entity'. There's debate as to whether that is a good or bad thing (economically lean corporations at the cost of massive redundancy)

Some might define Communist as 'the government that hurt me / took away my things / destroyed my individual rights'. Intellectuals and upper-class of the Cultural Revolution in particular. I have great respect and sympathy for this group - if I was a University professor and "Communism" burned my books and made me dig potatos instead of teaching, I'd be filled with anger. My limited (and overly simplisitc) experience with this group is that they are (astonishingly) forgiving of this period and see Communism as a bad time that has passed. Ooglyboogly can speak on this much more officially than I. This version of Communism is on the way out. The government gives and the people are expecting more 'individual rights' than before.

As also mentioned before, I believe China's 'Communist' places 'individual rights' at a lower priority than 'stability of the State' - and I don't necessarily think that is bad.

There is also a view that Communist is the oppression of freedom, the destruction of human rights and the violator of the pure. Communists are evil maniacs who will rape your women, eat your dog, steal your jobs, manipulate their currency, abuse rights, kill their own people, pillage Tibet. Obviously, I write it extremely - and I sadly read idea more frequently than I thought I would. 'China sux and the earthquake is God's vengeance on you Commie bastards!' is the type of comment that I've seen too often for my preference. As is probably obvious from my posts, I strongly disagree that Communist is like this. I think however China does a terribly job of image and not done enough to counteract this view - we can not just blissfully wait for CNN to tell the world that Communism or China = Heaven - we need to do something ourselves.

Then I offer my view. Communism is a name given to this current, hybrid, system of government practiced in China. It's at a tricky point somewhere between a controlled and planned economy / government to a 'capitalist' economy and 'hands off' government. Change happens quickly and irregularly and unevenly. The government still uses a frustrating amount of control in some sectors - our press is probably too censored. But (I believe) the government has given up far too much control to be 'liberal society' in other sectors (real estate, utilities) - the speed at which state controls have disappeared (and hence rampant unchecked capitalism has appeared) is concerning. People, the government, ordinary Chinese are still finding our way as to what exactly we want, expect and demand. I don't think there are any clear answers on that yet.

It's no secret we have practice a policy of isolation for a while. As world opinion changes, as China is more intergrated with world society, as we change our education systems, we will make more impact on the world and the world we make more impact on us.

Wherever we are now, it is VERY different from the 'text book' ideal of Communism - and certainly very different to where we were 20 years ago.

Finally, what's most important to me is not the 'label' - the government could change it's name to the Democratic Party or the Beijng Tea Party and I don't care so much. It's the 'action'. Since the actions are, as a general whole, producing positive things, so I think Chinese people are generally satisifed with the government. If the government was doing poorly, even if it was called the "Free People in support of Democracy party", I'd think we'd be complaining a lot more.

Oh, really?

I read in an article that China's government is ordering the construction of street cameras to watch people and make sure they aren't saying anything bad about the government. I think China's government is shifting back to its old ways.    

They couldnt do that even if they wanted to. "The Genie" is out of the bottle, abd there's no chance of getting it back in again - even if they wanted to, which I dont believe they do.

1.4Bn people have started to get a taste of more liberal practices - there's no going back now. You cant suppress 1.4Bn people when they have a mind to go in a direction. Its a bit like King Canute and the waves - a myth based on wishful thinking.

We shouldnt get too jingoistic about Democracy, its not perfect by any means - in fact theoretical Communism is widely acknowledged as the perfect theoretical form of government. The acknowledged problem with the latter though is it does not take into account human nature, is somewhat Utopian, and never works for long in practice.

Lets face it, for the most part, Politicians in the West are no longer anything to cheer about these days. The days of Intellectuals and Visionaries going into Politics in the West have long gone, given the odd few exceptions. They have, in the most part, been replaced with ego maniacs who like the sound of their own voices more than Public Service. Those who have the strength of character and intellect we need in Politicians, stay away from the current political Cess Pit, and I cant blame them. Western Politics is now just a sea of Popularist short term nonsense with no Strategic thought.

But for all the hassles I'd rather be the way we are in "The West" than have to suffer the alternatives. As Churchill so wisely expressed it:

"It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried".

Regards
Zy

for all of you who still think Tianmen is some hideous plot by the communist to crush aspiring democracy lovers in china. I think people should really find out who strongly consulted and indirectly advocated for the military crack down of that protest.

The chinese government at the time consulted Milton Friedman from the university of chicago, with an all expense trip paid to Shanghai for his godly economic advise about what action should be taken towards the protesters. Friedman's answer was that china should open up its markets and have free market at any and all costs. In one word, the economy of china should be exactly like that of the west. By the way, Friedman went to china twice, before the protest occured and during the time of the protest.

The students did not like it, but they were the minority, because the workers were the one who came out in force. They were not happy about the sudden and rapid dereulation of prices and the losing of jobs. The government enact such economic policies without consulting the massive labour force. The government decide to well...sent in the military to quell the protest. And the economic policy was in a way a shock mearsure to get the chinese people used to the new reality. Massive capitalism has arrived in china, therefore people should get used to it pretty fast and quickly or else.

Well...people did get used to it nowadays, as can be seen by the world in china. But then, don't forget, the government gave the world what it wants, which is economic freedom within its own borders, and a world manufacuring center to boot with very cheap labour force. The ironic thing about china as far as freedom goes, in china, you can be poor or rich, and no one will give a damn about it. That is freedom, but then i don't think that is the definition of what freedom has in mind to a westerner. But then, the chinese are happy with it, well i can't say everyone, but those who stands to benefits or knows how to turn a darwainan advantage into an advantage for themselves.

Oh yeah, Milton Friedman also went into other developing nations to give out the same advise as he did to the chinese leaders, and they enacted similar shock measurs.

Here is the links to what i am referring to:


http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/short-film

Do you knwo what the Falun Gong people in Canada says after what happened to the sichuan earthquake, they publicly stated that such natural disaster is a punishment for the communits communist government. Such statement just makes the chinese people hates them even more, especially ones that goes abroad to study. Let's just put it this way, amongst chinese in china, Falun Gongs are the most annoying bunch.

If the general direction and pace of Change in China was back towards a Totalitarian State - of whatever nature - I would have more sympathy, maybe even support " the protesters" more than I have. However, the change is towards a more liberal existence, for that we should all be grateful and supportive, not hyper-critical.

As always in Major events and trends, there are a significant group of people who love to pick away at the edges citing individual events and actions as somehow indicative of the "nasty guys over there". When things move on ahead on a gargantuan scale, as is happening in China, things will go wrong, authority sometimes will get oppressive - whatever. Its inevitable, they are doing in Decades what took the rest of us Generations to do.

Those who protest loudly - almost at times, smugly - should take a look at the last 100 years or so of their own Country, any Country ...... then significantly rephrase their protests. Its an incredible "Holier than Thou" attitude. By comparison with some of these vocal protesters, even King Canute had a good thing going for himself. Many are of course genuine of heart and feelings, fair enough. Too many however, are publicity and ego driven. The latter should leave well alone and stop meddling - and the rest of us should make it plain that it is unacceptable to meddle in that way.

Utopian of course, never happen, there will always be loud mouths around, we just have to be sensible enough to sift the ego clowns from the constructive protests. We should help China with the positives, not continually yell about the negatives. The former takes courage and intellect - the latter is not hard, just takes a few days at "cheap shot boot camp" to achieve.

Regards
Zy