Firaxis and the Gross Misrepresentation of Non-Western History?

[Lance of Llanwy]

Lance, when one has done 6 years of college-level research into modern Chinese history, one is entitled to their opinion regarding Mao. Waving complicating variables away as "commie propaganda" because it doesn't fit a simplistic worldview is more than a little ridiculous. The Great Leap was a colossal failure, but the regionally self-contained (rather than nationalized, as the Soviets did) industrialization of the Mao period set the foundations for China's current economic growth. Mao also provided over a booming Chinese population, an increased standard of living, vastly increased literacy, the (actual) end of concubineage and foot-binding, and increased status for women altogether. That's not a bad record, all things considered. Sure, he could've stood to have been democratic, but he did amazingly well with what he was given to work with. Another thing completely lacking from modern discussions of Mao is whether a pre-modern society could be expected to behave democratically anyways. The western world had theadvantage of legal traditions, industrialization, state-building, and widespread literacy campaigns to set a strong foundation for what would be a democratic tradition. Most of the rest of the world did not have this yet, and as such their leaders and government styles reflect that. Is it fair to hold countries that were incapable of supporting a democratic government in contempt for not being democratic? In this regard, I think Maoist China gets a pass, but post-Mao China is sorely lacking.

China loved pushing its vassals around, it's true. But they rarely bothered conquering them. How many times has China conquered Korea? Or Japan? It's gotten into Northern Vietnam, but that's about as far as it goes. It may have discovered America, but never really considered expanding into it. Pre-modern China is renowned for its wall-building (not just the Great Wall, but walls around cities, houses, everywhere) and heavy reliance on missile units in war (with a repeating crossbow, I cannot blame them). This is represented by the protective trait. I don't think it fits modern China (Mao-led) at all, and I don't think it particularly fits Qin's personality, but he's the only representative of "classical" China that we've got.

Would you care NOT to throw around childish accusations of myopism? Please? Thank you. Is it really so hard to have a civilized debate without calling your opponent's intelligence into question? I make no such charge against you.

Suffice to say, I am well-read on the subject myself. Everything you said is true...if you ignore the peasants, who, need I remind you, constitute the majority of the population even today. That China is still largely agrarian and that most peasants are still without basic services and there is little room or jobs in the cities to house them speaks for the CCP more loudly than any numbers they may produce. Numbers you shouldn't trust, Though they are true often enough, they are often slanted and bent to appear better than they actually are, because the CCP often finds the truth unpalatable. At least, I wouldn't trust a government with zero accountability to report the truth. Democratic governments often engage in a good deal of obfuscations, white lies, and straight-out falsehoods, and they have to worry about elections. It is true there is anti-CCP bias, but the fact there're people with an anti-CCP agenda doesn't make the CCP any good. Their programs are marked with massive waste, and this is constant throughout their existence. As for Mao, I think his record speaks for itself. It is entirely undeniable that he was a cruel megalomaniac who was obsessed with power. Absolute and total power, over every single person under his rule.

Oh...and the second part of your argument seems to operate on the assumption that modern China has existed from the dawn of time. Which, I am sure you well know, is complete garbage. The fact of the matter is that what we know as China was forged through blood and conquest, and it was forged by Qin. As for why China never bothered to wage a war of conquest: why? Why would China want more land? If China was the size of....say....France, then I have no doubt there would, at the very least, be no Koreans today. But China is massive, and many dynasties couldn't even bring everything their predecessors ruled as China under their control. China is large and unwieldly to govern: why govern more? China never really required more land, and thus waged wars of pacification(and they waged many) and only conquered seldomly, for geopolitical reasons(such as conquering Turfan in the Yellow River basin to keep the local horses from falling into the hands of hostile steppe peoples), and, of course, bullying their neighbors. This isn't quite as aggressive as European politics, but it is hardly isolationist or anywhere approaching peaceful. The Han even launched military campaigns against the Parthians, in part because they desired to meet the Romans for themselves.

Lastly, I do not see very many other leaders being statted to represent an era. Vicky maybe, but that's all she ever really was, the symbol of an era. As far as I can tell, the leaders in most other civs are traited on their own merits, not some "profile" of an "age." It leads us back to the whole point of the thread: Firaxis takes short-cuts when it comes to non-Europeans, and this is most blatant in East Asia where ample historical data(not counting untranslated sources) exists to evaluate them the same way as every other leader.

 

[cybrxkhan]

^

 

[snipafist]

Would you care NOT to throw around childish accusations of myopism? Please? Thank you. Is it really so hard to have a civilized debate without calling your opponent's intelligence into question? I make no such charge against you.

I'm not accusing you of being stupid, I was accusing you of being unstudied. The arguments you make are remarkably similar to just about every other person who never opened a book and subscribes to the "CCP=evil, Mao loved starving people" line that drives Asian historians insane. I've argued with fellow grad students in the same field, including Taiwanese students over all manner of things regarding modern Chinese history, and never has anyone made the "Mao was Satan" argument. He's been foolish, delusional, overwhelmed, well-meaning-but-catastrophic, and all manner of other negative traits depending on the individual's opinion but the flat out "he was a megalomaniac who loved starving his own people" interpretation I've never found repeated within studied circles of people.

Suffice to say, I am well-read on the subject myself. Everything you said is true...if you ignore the peasants, who, need I remind you, constitute the majority of the population even today. That China is still largely agrarian and that most peasants are still without basic services and there is little room or jobs in the cities to house them speaks for the CCP more loudly than any numbers they may produce.

The peasants weren't made literate? The parasitic gentry weren't removed? The women didn't get a huge improvement in legal status? Concubineage and footbinding weren't made illegal? Make sure to run out and let all those historians know that their piles of primary documents are all commie propaganda, and while you're at it let the Chinese know that the life improvements they've enjoyed are all lies. I'm not arguing that the peasants have it made, but when you consider how much improved life is for the average person in China, even the peasants, over the last 60 years, it's not hard to see that Mao did do some good things. Whoever else was available who could have done more? Chiang Kai-Shek?

I'm just tired of arguing this point with people who simply cannot see any good in the Chinese Communist Revolution because Mao wasn't what the Western leaders wanted. Somehow, the fiction asserts, if "the right person" had been in there instead of Mao, China would be a fairytale wonderland today where, within the last 60 years, all social problems would be resolved, jobs would rain from the heavens, and China would host the most robust democracy on Earth. Look at India. This is a country that essentially went through the same post-colonial problems as China with similar circumstances (underdeveloped, illiterate, hordes of lowly peasants, built-in corruption, etc.) and both of these countries are roughly on par, if not slightly favoring China, despite India being a democracy and China being a dictatorship with limited representation at the very very bottom. India also had Western investments and China had nothing but a determined push for self-improvement. Yet I never hear people asking what went wrong with India or bemoaning the fate of the millions of street children and Untouchables who have a hard enough time simply getting food before you factor in the alarming penchant other Indians seem to have for kidnapping/raping/murdering them.

Numbers you shouldn't trust, Though they are true often enough, they are often slanted and bent to appear better than they actually are, because the CCP often finds the truth unpalatable. At least, I wouldn't trust a government with zero accountability to report the truth. Democratic governments often engage in a good deal of obfuscations, white lies, and straight-out falsehoods, and they have to worry about elections. It is true there is anti-CCP bias, but the fact there're people with an anti-CCP agenda doesn't make the CCP any good. Their programs are marked with massive waste, and this is constant throughout their existence.

Yeah, governments lie. I'm not looking at CCP-provided numbers, I'm thinking about the thousands upon thousands of people I've witnessed while travelling through China, as well as the hundreds my group talked with. Additionally, I'm thinking about the thousands of pages from articles, essays, and books that I've read that have been published by knowledgeable persons who don't trust the CCP further than they could throw Mao's mausoleum.

CCP programs are massively wasteful and their system definitively suffers from a lack of the rule of law. This is true. However, the system is improving itself. Why? Money. Rich Western individuals want to ensure that if they invest, they can rely on getting a return and that they know how the game works - nobody particularly likes investing only to find out that hordes of CCP functionaries appear to levy made up fines on every conceivable purchase. The more transparent the process, the more comfortable the rich are with investing. As China is ruthlessly courting foreign investment, the CCP is slowly but surely creating a more responsive and efficient government. It's not democratic, but it's something. But then again, India regularly faces horrific corruption as well despite its democratic government, and I never see people asking why their government is so evil.

As for Mao, I think his record speaks for itself. It is entirely undeniable that he was a cruel megalomaniac who was obsessed with power. Absolute and total power, over every single person under his rule.

So basically your response to our major point of contention (how one interprets Mao himself as well as the Mao period) comes down to "I'm so right, I don't even need to explain myself." Gotcha. Good luck with that one, Mr. "civilized debate." I'm not going to argue that Mao didn't want power. He did. What politician, good or evil, doesn't want the ability to enforce his or her agenda? But think of what Mao was attempting to do. With one government he needed to:
1) modernize industry and agriculture
2) instill a sense of nationalism
3) address the historical oppression of women and eliminate the backwards elements of Confucian thought that created sharp social inequalities
4) modernize and centralize all elements of the military to keep China unified, free from foreign armies, and free from Guomindang counter-attacks

and this is before we even get to him being a communist. ANY competent new leader of a China that wished to modernize would have had to do all of these. When they all happen at once, it isn't pretty, I'm afraid.

The European powers, as I said earlier, had the virtue of a strong foundation set up over centuries on which to build a nation-state. The late-comers did not. Further, the European powers focused on state-building in the 16th through 19th centuries (which requires harsh measures, relocations of persons, installation of strong central governments, rapid and brutal corporate growth and industrialization, professional armies etc.) before they focused on nation-building (which is about molding morals, ideologies, and perspectives in how a citizen relates to their state) in the 19th and 20th centuries. The late-comers had to do both at once, which is very hard to do. State-building requires a cudgel and a sneer, while nation-building requires a soapbox and a smile. Don't be amazed that seeing the two of these together is a jumbled-up nasty mess, and I especially urge you to not overlook the fact that at some point or another your ancestors were engaged in similar behaviors. Westerners like to kid themselves into thinking that the process of creating their governments was a clean and efficient process when it was anything but.

Oh...and the second part of your argument seems to operate on the assumption that modern China has existed from the dawn of time. Which, I am sure you well know, is complete garbage.

Certainly. But we're playing Civ here, and our leaders exist from the dawn of time. Mao represents Modern China just like FDR represents the modern US.

The fact of the matter is that what we know as China was forged through blood and conquest, and it was forged by Qin.

This is true. All countries are forged in this manner, almost without exception.

As for why China never bothered to wage a war of conquest: why? Why would China want more land? If China was the size of....say....France, then I have no doubt there would, at the very least, be no Koreans today. But China is massive, and many dynasties couldn't even bring everything their predecessors ruled as China under their control. China is large and unwieldly to govern: why govern more? China never really required more land, and thus waged wars of pacification(and they waged many) and only conquered seldomly, for geopolitical reasons(such as conquering Turfan in the Yellow River basin to keep the local horses from falling into the hands of hostile steppe peoples), and, of course, bullying their neighbors. This isn't quite as aggressive as European politics, but it is hardly isolationist or anywhere approaching peaceful. The Han even launched military campaigns against the Parthians, in part because they desired to meet the Romans for themselves.

Right, but when a country is that massive it tends to be less militarily aggressive and more defensive, wishing to maintain a solid grasp over what it has rather than lusting over what it doesn't. It's big enough that the simple threat of force will often allow it to get what it wants from its smaller neighbors. However, we're dealing with Civ here. If the Vikings had originated on a huge rich island, they would've had their fill of resources and prosperity and never would've raided Europe. So why are the Vikings aggressive then? Shouldn't that be dependent on several historical factors? The reason the Vikings are aggressive is because historically, they acted that way (although I hope they didn't historically wear those ugly pink dresses under their armor). The reason the Chinese are protective is that historically they tended to act that way as well.

Lastly, I do not see very many other leaders being statted to represent an era. Vicky maybe, but that's all she ever really was, the symbol of an era. As far as I can tell, the leaders in most other civs are traited on their own merits, not some "profile" of an "age." It leads us back to the whole point of the thread: Firaxis takes short-cuts when it comes to non-Europeans, and this is most blatant in East Asia where ample historical data(not counting untranslated sources) exists to evaluate them the same way as every other leader.

On this much, we agree. Non-Western leaders do not get the same treatment in terms of historical depth. I'm arguing that Qin is slated as the "default classical Chinese ruler" as the idea that he gets protective and industrious because "hey, he built a huge wall!" is a little insulting, if potentially true.

 

[Roxlimn]

dh_epic:

Arguably, "fabulous economic wealth" and "world-spanning power" were earmarks of "victory" established by China or India during their heydays, and brought to the attention of European powers by the Mongol Empire.

Suddenly, English and the French, Spanish and Portugese, and the Dutch kings were no longer satisfied with their cotton and pottery, or with their little plots of kingdom. They HAD to have silk and porcelain and such, and they HAD to dominate the "Fabled Cities of the East."

Just as the Vikings saw better lands for the taking outside their borders, the pre-Colonization Europeans saw much better lands and products and opportunity abroad than locally, and that fueled their hunger for riches through the conquest of these far cities, rather than focusing exclusively on fighting each other, as they had usually done.

 

[ukrneal]

I'm not accusing you of being stupid, I was accusing you of being unstudied. The arguments you make are remarkably similar to just about every other person who never opened a book and subscribes to the "CCP=evil, Mao loved starving people" line that drives Asian historians insane. I've argued with fellow grad students in the same field, including Taiwanese students over all manner of things regarding modern Chinese history, and never has anyone made the "Mao was Satan" argument. He's been foolish, delusional, overwhelmed, well-meaning-but-catastrophic, and all manner of other negative traits depending on the individual's opinion but the flat out "he was a megalomaniac who loved starving his own people" interpretation I've never found repeated within studied circles of people.



The peasants weren't made literate? The parasitic gentry weren't removed? The women didn't get a huge improvement in legal status? Concubineage and footbinding weren't made illegal? Make sure to run out and let all those historians know that their piles of primary documents are all commie propaganda, and while you're at it let the Chinese know that the life improvements they've enjoyed are all lies. I'm not arguing that the peasants have it made, but when you consider how much improved life is for the average person in China, even the peasants, over the last 60 years, it's not hard to see that Mao did do some good things. Whoever else was available who could have done more? Chiang Kai-Shek?

I'm just tired of arguing this point with people who simply cannot see any good in the Chinese Communist Revolution because Mao wasn't what the Western leaders wanted. Somehow, the fiction asserts, if "the right person" had been in there instead of Mao, China would be a fairytale wonderland today where, within the last 60 years, all social problems would be resolved, jobs would rain from the heavens, and China would host the most robust democracy on Earth. Look at India. This is a country that essentially went through the same post-colonial problems as China with similar circumstances (underdeveloped, illiterate, hordes of lowly peasants, built-in corruption, etc.) and both of these countries are roughly on par, if not slightly favoring China, despite India being a democracy and China being a dictatorship with limited representation at the very very bottom. India also had Western investments and China had nothing but a determined push for self-improvement. Yet I never hear people asking what went wrong with India or bemoaning the fate of the millions of street children and Untouchables who have a hard enough time simply getting food before you factor in the alarming penchant other Indians seem to have for kidnapping/raping/murdering them.



Yeah, governments lie. I'm not looking at CCP-provided numbers, I'm thinking about the thousands upon thousands of people I've witnessed while travelling through China, as well as the hundreds my group talked with. Additionally, I'm thinking about the thousands of pages from articles, essays, and books that I've read that have been published by knowledgeable persons who don't trust the CCP further than they could throw Mao's mausoleum.

CCP programs are massively wasteful and their system definitively suffers from a lack of the rule of law. This is true. However, the system is improving itself. Why? Money. Rich Western individuals want to ensure that if they invest, they can rely on getting a return and that they know how the game works - nobody particularly likes investing only to find out that hordes of CCP functionaries appear to levy made up fines on every conceivable purchase. The more transparent the process, the more comfortable the rich are with investing. As China is ruthlessly courting foreign investment, the CCP is slowly but surely creating a more responsive and efficient government. It's not democratic, but it's something. But then again, India regularly faces horrific corruption as well despite its democratic government, and I never see people asking why their government is so evil.



So basically your response to our major point of contention (how one interprets Mao himself as well as the Mao period) comes down to "I'm so right, I don't even need to explain myself." Gotcha. Good luck with that one, Mr. "civilized debate." I'm not going to argue that Mao didn't want power. He did. What politician, good or evil, doesn't want the ability to enforce his or her agenda? But think of what Mao was attempting to do. With one government he needed to:
1) modernize industry and agriculture
2) instill a sense of nationalism
3) address the historical oppression of women and eliminate the backwards elements of Confucian thought that created sharp social inequalities
4) modernize and centralize all elements of the military to keep China unified, free from foreign armies, and free from Guomindang counter-attacks

and this is before we even get to him being a communist. ANY competent new leader of a China that wished to modernize would have had to do all of these. When they all happen at once, it isn't pretty, I'm afraid.

The European powers, as I said earlier, had the virtue of a strong foundation set up over centuries on which to build a nation-state. The late-comers did not. Further, the European powers focused on state-building in the 16th through 19th centuries (which requires harsh measures, relocations of persons, installation of strong central governments, rapid and brutal corporate growth and industrialization, professional armies etc.) before they focused on nation-building (which is about molding morals, ideologies, and perspectives in how a citizen relates to their state) in the 19th and 20th centuries. The late-comers had to do both at once, which is very hard to do. State-building requires a cudgel and a sneer, while nation-building requires a soapbox and a smile. Don't be amazed that seeing the two of these together is a jumbled-up nasty mess, and I especially urge you to not overlook the fact that at some point or another your ancestors were engaged in similar behaviors. Westerners like to kid themselves into thinking that the process of creating their governments was a clean and efficient process when it was anything but.

There is simply NOTHING positive that has come out of communism. It is an oppressive system with so many negative aspects - that even the Chinese have shifted away from it. They are not where they are because of communism.

Incidentally, while the law may have changed, many of the issues you addressed early on are still issues.

 

[snipafist]

There is simply NOTHING positive that has come out of communism. It is an oppressive system with so many negative aspects - that even the Chinese have shifted away from it. They are not where they are because of communism.

Incidentally, while the law may have changed, many of the issues you addressed early on are still issues.

Disagreed. Communist countries tend to do a good job of modernizing and industrializing early in their careers before later descending into a near-theocratic mess of corruption due to the sheer size and unaccountability of their governmental system. Making the big leap from a pre-modern country to a modern one requires immense government control of resources and people, and communist governments do this, often far better than the second-rate dictatorships around the globe do. The problem is the "what happens later" effect which usually leads to harsh police states followed by dissension and collapse. Don't forget, however, that the Chinese tried a run-of-the-mill dictatorship that pretended to be a democracy under Chiang Kai-Shek, and that was a spectacular era of nothing but consistent failures, so it would appear that Mao and his crew did do some good.

I don't disagree that many of the problems still remain in lesser form (prostitution and drug use have lately made a huge comeback, but I can rest assured that foot-binding is still dead). The Chinese peasants are lagging behind their city cousins in terms of education and well-being. However, they're doing wonderfully compared to 60 years earlier. Most have flush toilets, color televisions, radios, cars, etc., making their standard of living much higher than their grandparents'. Women's suffrage is slowly regressing, but women are still as legally protected as men and afforded the same rights. How anyone can look at China now and see nothing but problems when compared to 60+ years ago is beyond me. The people tend to be happy, healthy, literate, and proud of their country (if a bit iffy on their government). They didn't have that a couple generations ago.

 

[Roxlimn]

Also, "communist governments" typically aren't really "communist" in the Marx sense of the word, since totalitarian control of government is only supposed to be a transition state in communist political concept. A true communist government would be totally transparent and have no true central leaders.

 

[ukrneal]

Disagreed. Communist countries tend to do a good job of modernizing and industrializing early in their careers before later descending into a near-theocratic mess of corruption due to the sheer size and unaccountability of their governmental system. Making the big leap from a pre-modern country to a modern one requires immense government control of resources and people, and communist governments do this, often far better than the second-rate dictatorships around the globe do. The problem is the "what happens later" effect which usually leads to harsh police states followed by dissension and collapse. Don't forget, however, that the Chinese tried a run-of-the-mill dictatorship that pretended to be a democracy under Chiang Kai-Shek, and that was a spectacular era of nothing but consistent failures, so it would appear that Mao and his crew did do some good.

I don't disagree that many of the problems still remain in lesser form (prostitution and drug use have lately made a huge comeback, but I can rest assured that foot-binding is still dead). The Chinese peasants are lagging behind their city cousins in terms of education and well-being. However, they're doing wonderfully compared to 60 years earlier. Most have flush toilets, color televisions, radios, cars, etc., making their standard of living much higher than their grandparents'. Women's suffrage is slowly regressing, but women are still as legally protected as men and afforded the same rights. How anyone can look at China now and see nothing but problems when compared to 60+ years ago is beyond me. The people tend to be happy, healthy, literate, and proud of their country (if a bit iffy on their government). They didn't have that a couple generations ago.

Communism and authoritarianism are quite different things. The Chinese and other communist countries got things done due to a authoritarian or totalitarian state. Communism has everythign to do with classes (or lack of one, or just one) and state ownership/control (although I suppose I should really say some sort of broad "people's" ownership). What you describe is exactly the same thing that Putin is doing successfully in Russia. Or, it is what Peter the Great did in 18th century Russia. There is little connection to communism.

If you look at state owned companies, they are immensely inefficient and wasteful. Private companies, if allowed to compete, will always beat a state owned company. There is certainly plenty of proof of that. The Chinese moved away from strict communism. The Party still controls things, but it has released a certain amount from its control. The only reason that China has been as successful as it has been is due to its shift AWAY from Communism.

There is a question of the cost of China's 'success' too. How many people were killed, forced into poverty, etc., because CHina wanted to leap forward? Any good done in any communist country was in spite of the system, not because of it.

 

[snipafist]

Communism and authoritarianism are quite different things. The Chinese and other communist countries got things done due to a authoritarian or totalitarian state. Communism has everythign to do with classes (or lack of one, or just one) and state ownership/control (although I suppose I should really say some sort of broad "people's" ownership). What you describe is exactly the same thing that Putin is doing successfully in Russia. Or, it is what Peter the Great did in 18th century Russia. There is little connection to communism.

If you look at state owned companies, they are immensely inefficient and wasteful. Private companies, if allowed to compete, will always beat a state owned company. There is certainly plenty of proof of that. The Chinese moved away from strict communism. The Party still controls things, but it has released a certain amount from its control. The only reason that China has been as successful as it has been is due to its shift AWAY from Communism.

There is a question of the cost of China's 'success' too. How many people were killed, forced into poverty, etc., because CHina wanted to leap forward? Any good done in any communist country was in spite of the system, not because of it.

While I feel we mostly agree, (modernizing is a messy process and command economies will almost always beat out nationalized economies over time) I still think communism in its early stages makes for a great transitional government for modernizing. Two-bit dictators rule through force alone where early communist-inspired governments obsessively seek the participation of the public, which quickly involves previously uncaring citizens in the nation-state endeavor. I would agree that China's success (as opposed to the USSR's collapse) stems from its conscious decision to begin abandoning communism. State communism has a short shelf life in terms of positive benefits (usually only lasting about one generation before it shows significant wear and tear).

As for the "costs" of communism, I once again want to invoke India. This is a country that has gone through many of the same troubles China has, but it has never been a communist government. Whether you're tallying up those lost from the disastrous Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution in China or the countless millions left to starve in the streets of India, neither country has really modernized without significant social costs. I am not saying that this excuses CCP excesses or missteps, but I often find people are far more critical of the PRC than they are of India, despite rampant similarities between the two. The simple fact is this - any modernizing country goes through some nasty times when it's trying to reconfigure how it conceives of itself and how it behaves, while trying to bury the past - it creates a fiction of itself, basically. In China, you had all kinds of suffering and strife. Yet in the US, how many millions of Native Americans were killed to accommodate "proper white citizens?" Let's not forget the extremely costly Civil War as well, which was another growing pain of modernization - a state destroying itself to iron out inconsistencies in its own rhetoric regarding nationalistic self-perceptions.

 

[AnaNg]

Snipafist - you provide an incredibly balanced view of the recent modern history of China. Really, kudos to you.

The GLF/CR was horrific for those involved (please say you don't deny this) that were neither the peasantry nor the revolutionaries, yes. But all revolutions go that way, and all revolutions improve life for some, often at the expense of others. They're a crude, though often necessary, attempt at a pendulum swing that should really never be meant to be the ongoing situation. In short: They're meant to right a wrong often by trying to compensate for many years of wrong. Which, in itself, is ... wrong. But eventually things find balance.

The reason why countries move away from that which spawned the revolution is just that. At some point, after years or decades or some period of time, things seek balance - so to criticize China for moving towards balance is ridiculous.

I would agree that China's success (as opposed to the USSR's collapse) stems from its conscious decision to begin abandoning communism. State communism has a short shelf life in terms of positive benefits (usually only lasting about one generation before it shows significant wear and tear).

They have managed to, with their hybrid system, offset both the "drawbacks" communism and capitalism present to their models. Many people don't realize there's a difference between economic and political governing systems. China, unlike the Soviet Union, split the difference with incredibly effective results. They realized that the political system of Communism need not interfere with the economic system of capitalism.

There is simply NOTHING positive that has come out of communism. It is an oppressive system with so many negative aspects - that even the Chinese have shifted away from it. They are not where they are because of communism.

Incidentally, while the law may have changed, many of the issues you addressed early on are still issues.

You confuse political and economic systems. The Chinese have realized that to thrive economically they must compete in that prevailng market - capitalism. The govenmental systems, however, remain communist. In other words, they were simply more pragmatic and realistic than the :"soviets" were - to their great benefit. Yes there are many that are disenfranchised and things are backstepping in some regards. But until the US has no teenage-runaway-prostitutes and back-alley hustlers then there's really no room to talk.

[...]neither country has really modernized without significant social costs. I am not saying that this excuses CCP excesses or missteps, but I often find people are far more critical of the PRC than they are of India, despite rampant similarities between the two. The simple fact is this - any modernizing country goes through some nasty times when it's trying to reconfigure how it conceives of itself and how it behaves, while trying to bury the past - it creates a fiction of itself, basically. In China, you had all kinds of suffering and strife. Yet in the US, how many millions of Native Americans were killed to accommodate "proper white citizens?" Let's not forget the extremely costly Civil War as well, which was another growing pain of modernization - a state destroying itself to iron out inconsistencies in its own rhetoric regarding nationalistic self-perceptions.

And that's really the rub, isn't it. The fact of the matter is that anyone that has a knee-jerk reaction to communism in China (again I say that the CR and the GLF were horrific to an obscene about of people) does not understand the difficulties involved there. In fact China is evolving much more gracefully (though admittedly not there yet) into a viable economic and social powerhouse than people give it credit for - and to the benefit of many of their people.

I think what scares people (and I say this as a staunch believer in democracy/capitalism) is that they're going about it in a different way - in a way that suits that culture; that enormous, disparate population; and suits that region.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

Snipafist - you provide an incredibly balanced view of the recent modern history of China. Really, kudos to you.

The GLF/CR was horrific for those involved (please say you don't deny this) that were neither the peasantry nor the revolutionaries, yes. But all revolutions go that way, and all revolutions improve life for some, often at the expense of others. They're a crude, though often necessary, attempt at a pendulum swing that should really never be meant to be the ongoing situation. In short: They're meant to right a wrong often by trying to compensate for many years of wrong. Which, in itself, is ... wrong. But eventually things find balance.

The reason why countries move away from that which spawned the revolution is just that. At some point, after years or decades or some period of time, things seek balance - so to criticize China for moving towards balance is ridiculous.



They have managed to, with their hybrid system, offset both the "drawbacks" communism and capitalism present to their models. Many people don't realize there's a difference between economic and political governing systems. China, unlike the Soviet Union, split the difference with incredibly effective results. They realized that the political system of Communism need not interfere with the economic system of capitalism.



You confuse political and economic systems. The Chinese have realized that to thrive economically they must compete in that prevailng market - capitalism. The govenmental systems, however, remain communist. In other words, they were simply more pragmatic and realistic than the :"soviets" were - to their great benefit. Yes there are many that are disenfranchised and things are backstepping in some regards. But until the US has no teenage-runaway-prostitutes and back-alley hustlers then there's really no room to talk.



And that's really the rub, isn't it. The fact of the matter is that anyone that has a knee-jerk reaction to communism in China (again I say that the CR and the GLF were horrific to an obscene about of people) does not understand the difficulties involved there. In fact China is evolving much more gracefully (though admittedly not there yet) into a viable economic and social powerhouse than people give it credit for - and to the benefit of many of their people.

I think what scares people (and I say this as a staunch believer in democracy/capitalism) is that they're going about it in a different way - in a way that suits that culture; that enormous, disparate population; and suits that region.

There we are again! That, somehow, China can't be democratic, which, by the way, it was doing a decent job of, not too long ago(for a brief period, and I'm not talking about Jiang). There is absolutely no cultural reason that Chinese are pre-disposed to totalitarianism. The reason they can be ruled as such is that most of undeducated peasantry, and that really hasn't changed. The CCP has consistently failed to improve their lot. Most local party chiefs engage in unbelievably corrupt practices: levying taxes that don't exist, keeping a large portion of the money themselves, and using intimidation to ensure they get their way. And what do the party chiefs in Beijing do? NOTHING. They don't fund rural hospitals, or rural schools anywhere approaching adequately, if at all. They cruelly oppress non-Chinese groups.

While it is true thay have overseen progress, especially economically, I would contend that that is in spite of the corrupt and inefficient CCP, not in any way because of it..

 

[cybrxkhan]

China did improve a lot because of the communists, maybe more, maybe less than it could have, but it did improve.

However, the price for that... well, for me its quite a lot, probably one of the highest in history. the estimates for the dead under Mao range anywhere from 25 million to 100 million.

and then theres the Cultural Revolution, which i consider one of the greatest if not the greatest cultural tragedy in history - thousands of years of history, culture, religion, and so forth, destroyed in a meaningless, hateful few years.

 

[AnaNg]

There we are again! That, somehow, China can't be democratic, which, by the way, it was doing a decent job of, not too long ago(for a brief period, and I'm not talking about Jiang).

Wait, did I say they couldn't? Or did I say they chose a path that was perhaps better suited to them, with good results after a rocky start? Show me a nation that redefined itself without hurt and tragedy.

There is absolutely no cultural reason that Chinese are pre-disposed to totalitarianism.

Sorry thought we were talking about Communism/Democracy not totalitarianism. Either I misunderstood or you have a mental block.

Most local party chiefs engage in unbelievably corrupt practices: levying taxes that don't exist, keeping a large portion of the money themselves, and using intimidation to ensure they get their way. And what do the party chiefs in Beijing do? NOTHING.

HAHAHA Oh lord. So you're going to compare a nation in flux to established nations? OK how about this. How about we go back in time a bit (and not that far either). Have you heard the phrase "Vote early, vote often". Do you know where that came from? It came from Chicago elections where the dead were somehow exhumed to vote in current elections. And as far as I know, Chicago was never communist. I also suggest you look into other American "democratic" traditions in Detroit, New York and even modern D.C. and other places. I'm sure there's not a corrupt soul who embezzeled or extorted money or otherwise3 used office to fudge anywhere in the bunch.

If there ever were, all of your contentions would simply fold. And we can't have that.

 

[snipafist]

and then theres the Cultural Revolution, which i consider one of the greatest if not the greatest cultural tragedy in history - thousands of years of history, culture, religion, and so forth, destroyed in a meaningless, hateful few years.

I in no way want to defend the Cultural Revolution, but I did want to say that most modernizing societies go through a similar (if not nearly so bloody) period of deliberately destroying the old. Europe discredited and began dismantling feudalism and the authority of the Catholic church in the renaissance, and nationalistic European intellectuals went out of their way to discourage the peasantry from acting like... well, the peasantry in order to become "citizens" instead. I know that because China has such an ancient and mostly contiguous history it seems an awful shame, but the old Confucian values simply did not mesh well with a modern nation-state. And one of the best ways to challenge an idea is to attack the symbols of that idea - monuments, persons, institutions, etc. In the end it seems all so very wasteful and tragic, but it happens in every modernizing country.

Again let me repeat myself: I am in no way sanctioning the Cultural Revolution. That was a mess that rapidly grew out of control, destroying far more than it had any right to all with an end effect of the CCP being increasingly distrustful of any kind of populist movements or aspirations to leading or inspiring the common man. A tragedy all around.

 

[AnaNg]

I in no way want to defend the Cultural Revolution, but I did want to say that most modernizing societies go through a similar (if not nearly so bloody) period of deliberately destroying the old. Europe discredited and began dismantling feudalism and the authority of the Catholic church in the renaissance, and nationalistic European intellectuals went out of their way to discourage the peasantry from acting like... well, the peasantry in order to become "citizens" instead.

Do you think it was less bloody or that the scale, given the segmented quality of Europe, was simply larger? I mean, it would be difficult to state that the French Revolution wasn't particularly bloody and there were various other goings on around the period that were hardly peaceful. But each of those is taken as its own incident, and each of those is but a fraction the size of China.

Additionally (and I mean, in no way, to imply that China is "backward" or "behind the times") but many of those upheavals in Europe/Eastern Asia took place somewhat or far beyond living memory while the Cultural Revolution has people in their 30's that lived through it.

Like you, I'm not defending it, but I wonder at the perception of it. In other words, has it not been as tempered by time as western revolutions of likely similar nature.

 

[ukrneal]

Snipafist - you provide an incredibly balanced view of the recent modern history of China. Really, kudos to you.

The GLF/CR was horrific for those involved (please say you don't deny this) that were neither the peasantry nor the revolutionaries, yes. But all revolutions go that way, and all revolutions improve life for some, often at the expense of others. They're a crude, though often necessary, attempt at a pendulum swing that should really never be meant to be the ongoing situation. In short: They're meant to right a wrong often by trying to compensate for many years of wrong. Which, in itself, is ... wrong. But eventually things find balance.

The reason why countries move away from that which spawned the revolution is just that. At some point, after years or decades or some period of time, things seek balance - so to criticize China for moving towards balance is ridiculous.



They have managed to, with their hybrid system, offset both the "drawbacks" communism and capitalism present to their models. Many people don't realize there's a difference between economic and political governing systems. China, unlike the Soviet Union, split the difference with incredibly effective results. They realized that the political system of Communism need not interfere with the economic system of capitalism.



You confuse political and economic systems. The Chinese have realized that to thrive economically they must compete in that prevailng market - capitalism. The govenmental systems, however, remain communist. In other words, they were simply more pragmatic and realistic than the :"soviets" were - to their great benefit. Yes there are many that are disenfranchised and things are backstepping in some regards. But until the US has no teenage-runaway-prostitutes and back-alley hustlers then there's really no room to talk.



And that's really the rub, isn't it. The fact of the matter is that anyone that has a knee-jerk reaction to communism in China (again I say that the CR and the GLF were horrific to an obscene about of people) does not understand the difficulties involved there. In fact China is evolving much more gracefully (though admittedly not there yet) into a viable economic and social powerhouse than people give it credit for - and to the benefit of many of their people.

I think what scares people (and I say this as a staunch believer in democracy/capitalism) is that they're going about it in a different way - in a way that suits that culture; that enormous, disparate population; and suits that region.

You (and others) appear to have a very idealized view on communism. You don;t seem to understand or marginalize the human costs of the system.

Communisn has never been a long-term viable system and probably never will be. You (and others) attack what has happened in other countries, India and the US, to support your position. This is really no argument in my opinion. And saying others just don't understand is also ineffective.

 

[AnaNg]

You (and others) appear to have a very idealized view on communism. You don;t seem to understand or marginalize the human costs of the system.

You make a lot of assumptions.

 

[snipafist]

You (and others) appear to have a very idealized view on communism. You don;t seem to understand or marginalize the human costs of the system.

Communisn has never been a long-term viable system and probably never will be. You (and others) attack what has happened in other countries, India and the US, to support your position. This is really no argument in my opinion. And saying others just don't understand is also ineffective.

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. At what point did I indicate that I thought communism was swell? I just said that it works awfully well as a transitional government for modernization, especially as compared to the other option of run-of-the-mill dictatorship which usually just accomplishes replacing an old feudal jerk with a new feudal jerk armed with bigger guns. The first generation or so of a communist-run government usually does pretty well (and actually tends to make more significant gains %wise in industry than their capitalist counterparts), but the inertia wears off quickly, usually resulting in a languishing bureaucratic nightmare police state that inevitably collapses after causing far too much suffering. What I'm saying at least (and I can only assume that others agree) is that EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY that makes the leap from pre-modern to modern status goes through a very nasty period, whether or not they are communist. Screaming at the CCP for its perceived historical faults doesn't change the fact that many of the events we are discussing and conditions we are analyzing are indicative of the historical process being undertaken (modernization and a transition to a nation-state) rather than the type of government being exercised.

 

[ukrneal]

You make a lot of assumptions.

Which are...?

 

[ukrneal]

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. At what point did I indicate that I thought communism was swell? I just said that it works awfully well as a transitional government for modernization, especially as compared to the other option of run-of-the-mill dictatorship which usually just accomplishes replacing an old feudal jerk with a new feudal jerk armed with bigger guns. The first generation or so of a communist-run government usually does pretty well (and actually tends to make more significant gains %wise in industry than their capitalist counterparts), but the inertia wears off quickly, usually resulting in a languishing bureaucratic nightmare police state that inevitably collapses after causing far too much suffering. What I'm saying at least (and I can only assume that others agree) is that EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY that makes the leap from pre-modern to modern status goes through a very nasty period, whether or not they are communist. Screaming at the CCP for its perceived historical faults doesn't change the fact that many of the events we are discussing and conditions we are analyzing are indicative of the historical process being undertaken (modernization and a transition to a nation-state) rather than the type of government being exercised.

I've never seen anyone try to measure what transition is better. Nor am I convinced that going through a 'nasty period' is necessary (although this can be interpreted in different ways). One has only to look at Eastern Europe to see how quickly capitalism and democracy have helped those countries to catch up to Western countries (and the same is true of China). The simultaneous destruction that goes on under communism is far more costly than any advances. We can discuss it in terms of human cost, changes in mentality, and others.