Also as I was writing my comment i kind of created my own "clash of civilizations" theory:
if China is run by feelings, the US by cynicism, Europe by their morals, then what drives the rest of the world can also be described. Ambition-Russia, Turkey, Brazil, Inertia-India, Japan, Islam-most countries with a majority Muslim population, self-preservation- Israel, Iran, North Korea etc.
The psychology of the country is unfortunately missed by most commentators. It is especially true for China. I for one do not understand why there is basically no effort to change a national psychology. Perhaps it is the democratic habit of letting people think the way they want, but I think there is much that the US could do to change a victim mentality.

You are spot on here, Mishmael. One can find a microcosmic model of similar attitudes in Singapore. The US system appears politically decadent and other peoples favour a more structured balance between freedom and discipline.

If you really believe that China is run by "people's feelings" and the US by "cynicism" then you clearly haven't spent any time in China. Based on the other silly comments in your post, it appears you learned much in your lifetime, either. Your line about China's precious torch rely being "horribly mutilated by Western freedoms..." would have been an appropriate one to use criticize a human rights protester of the 1936 Berlin Olympics, as well. The Nazis, whom you so clearly admire, were no fan of political protest either.

The fascist leaders of Japan during WW 2 later in the war, eventually, thought they could outlast and wear down the United States, primarily, and its allies by never surrendering, by vainglorious Emperor inspired bonzai attacks, tenacious dug in cave and underground defensive positions.

But relentless island hopping and Untied States Marine assertions of dogged military tenacity - and uncommon valor as a common virtue - plus two big booms in Japan in 1945, proved the totalitarian fascist militarist Japanese to be the fools and idiots they were in 1937 and most importantly in December of 1941.

The fascist ruling Communist Party of China isn't going to outlast anyone, especially given the divisions of the PRC regionally, economically, sociopolitically, socioculturally. The technological technological superiority of the United States in particular is humongous over the PRC and only will continue to be so, ever more so increasingly.....there isn't any way the PRC can keep up much less surpass the always superior technological supremecy of the United States. If Chinese warmongers want to rant and carry on about mortal conflict, war, accusing others of that which they themselves in the long term seek, they too will come out on the shyt end of the stick.

I've listened and had discourse with many young Chinese in the PRC who dream of sinking a US aircraft carrier and who also dream of the PRC someday having the knowhow and technology to themselves have the capability and capacity to build even one aircraft carrier. A certain segment of the population of the PRC are nuts - warmonger crazy - and those people are the members of the fascist Communist Party of China.

We've long since gone beyond the matter of outlasting one's opponent. It's now a matter of sudden destruction - annhillation if necessary, if and as may be required. Given that you've completely missed this reality, you need to ask the Japanese about it.

My response above is about the statement by Mishael that the People's Republic of China can WW 2 style outlast and overwhelm its opponent, the United States, and is directed at him and his shortsighted, alleged reasoning and thinking.

In the Beijing planned eventual war thinking in of military conflict between the US and the People's Republic of China, which in Beijing is a genuine lunatic fantasy, there in fact wouldn't be any such WW 2 contest of overwhelmingly outlasting one or the other - there is only sudden and total destruction - of the inferior opponent. You need to abandon your mad Chinese war dreams of the Communist Party of China to eventually conquer, based on biding your time first to claim peaceful intentions to build your economy, then to build your aggressive military force, both designed to destroy Japan and above all else the United States.

You sound to those among us who have heard your typical long term intentions, like Iran saying its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes and intents. The fact is the eternal absolute rulers of Iran are historical cousins to the eternal absolute rulers of the People's Republic of China, whose present leadership are nothing more than emporers in busess suits and ties.

You and your eventual, calculating, warmongering historical cousins aren't fooling many people at all. Certainly not here.

My response above is about the statement by Mishael that the People's Republic of China can WW 2 style outlast and overwhelm its opponent, the United States, and is directed at him and his shortsighted, alleged reasoning and thinking.

In the Beijing planned eventual war thinking in of military conflict between the US and the People's Republic of China, which in Beijing is a genuine lunatic fantasy, there in fact wouldn't be any such WW 2 contest of overwhelmingly outlasting one or the other - there is only sudden and total destruction - of the inferior opponent. You need to abandon your mad Chinese war dreams of the Communist Party of China to eventually conquer, based on biding your time first to claim peaceful intentions to build your economy, then to build your aggressive military force, both designed to destroy Japan and above all else the United States.

You sound to those among us who have heard your typical long term intentions, like Iran saying its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes and intents. The fact is the eternal absolute rulers of Iran are historical cousins to the eternal absolute rulers of the People's Republic of China, whose present leadership are nothing more than emporers in busess suits and ties.

You and your eventual, calculating, warmongering historical cousins aren't fooling many people at all. Certainly not here.

The chinese are incapable of organizing a society based on democracy and freedom. Serfdom is in their blood, it's racist to judge them and say they should be like the west. Human rights, what nonsense.

Debt is slavery and serfdom, and US citizens, individually and collectively, are more indebted than the Chinese.

Are you really this obtuse or are you being ironic?

GENERALOREO, i also confused by your post. My point is that China should, like most western countries have done, have the right to develop at its own pace, borrowing ideas it likes, and rejecting others that don't. It's colonial to go telling countries, particularly ones from very different cultures, what they should be doing.

It's also ironic to get this constant diatribe about 'human rights' when western countries like ours also have very poor human rights records. We are in no position to judge.

The idea that every Chinese is "looking for freedom" is wrong on so many levels.

Do you really believe the nonsense you spout about debt equalling serfdom, or do you just write whatever you think sounds clever without understanding the meaning? I'm not sure which answer would be worse.

Freetrader is on the mark, spot on.

The government of the People's Republic of China is now trying to cozy up to the US in international diplomacy to appear more globally responsible to the US and to the Europeans, while simultaneously and contrarily becoming more repressive domestically, throwing Google out of the PRC and censoring more websites than ever previously - not not only are Facebook PROHIBITED to the people of the People's Republic, but so is YouTube, Twitter, Friendster and a host of other social websites that can connect and expose the people of the People's Republic to the world.

The fact is, global corporations - multinationals - hire Chinese from Taiwan, Hong Kong and some from Singapore (the latter a one party 'democracy') but rarely hire Chinese from the mainland because mainland Chinese haven't any idea how to relate to corporations or people from democratic societies, cultures or countries with democratic governments. The mainland Chinese don't use vocabulary in Chinese or English such as democracy, freedom, liberty, free speech, elections, general elections, congress, representative government, the House or the Senate, or the Commons or Lords, parliamentary deputies, English law, common law - they haven't any idea of the Magna Carta or how it can be traced through history in the various ways etc etc.

The mainland Chinese haven't any idea or clue as to who or what you or I are or of our societies, cultures, civilizations. The mainland Chinese know only one truth - the truth of the ruling Communist Party of China. They get the CPC 'truth' from their parents from birth who, in turn got it from their parents and teachers, and pass it on to their children who also get it in the modern Chines state mass media and from their teachers right up through college/university.

The encouraging fact is that the former Soviet Union was organized in the same manner and it collapsed of its own dead weight. The Soviets, namely Gorbachev, made the 'mistake' of peristoika' and 'glasnost'. The mistake of the Communist Party of China is to slam down on the same. Neither approach can nor will succeed.

stop yer spam

Come on BobChen, one million Chinese soldiers can't be wrong, can they? Certainly not any more than 60m Frenchmen couldn't ever have been wrong!

Especially not when they died en masse in the Korean Conflict, in the 1969 border conflicts with the then Soviet Union, later against the hated religious democracy India in yet another border dispute, and always are prepared to invade Taiwan knowing the US will respond.

Yet there isn't an actively serving Chinese general or soldier who's fought in a war, such as in Vietnam, or Iraq, or Afghanistan......there isn't a Chinese general or admiral who knows any reality of his enemy - any enemy - but is still is willing to fight and die for mother PRChina.

We're talking about the Chinese here, are we not? The Middle Kingdom....the 5 000 year old civilization that knows so much and can outsmart the newcomers of the West at their own game? Are we not???

The younger Chinese don't smoke or drink as their elders do, but know and fear they will have to do so once they've graduated university in order to be accepted in extant PRC Chinese culture and society. Pretty grim stuff.

More so, the younger Chinese know the lesson of Tianaman Square of '6-4' (1989) as they quietly say among one another. So which is it? Die killing Americans or die killing their Communist Party commanders?

Many of the young Chinese are the children of the 'Princelings', the red diaper next and after that the next next in line to rule. You think they're going to, in the metaphorical terminology of the 1960's United States, kill their parents?

Give us your wisdom in its ancient and 'sophisticated' Chinese roots...... a tall order indeed.

Not conventional war, I'm talking about the prospect of nuclear war. No states with a nuclear arsenal will risk a hot war becoming a war of mutual annihilation. Total destruction. Even the Soviets weren't that crazy. I dunno, unless all these Chinese youngsters played too much Fallout and suddenly have a hard-on for post-apocalyptic mutant-bashing.
Seriously Publicus, your reading comprehension has not improved since the last time we talked.

I am pretty confident that Hu Jintao & Co won't blunder into a conflict with the US. My point was that the next generation is more likely to. I wouldn't rate it a probability but it is a possibility. Despite the openess of the internet, most of the younger Chinese are clueless about both the relative weakness of their country and how they are perceived by others - any criticism of China is considered to be some sort of foreign plot. The current ruling elite in China know how much China has to lose but at the same time have stoked the countries flames of nationalism in an effort to maintain control (in a similar process, they feed the pervasive corruption that they are responsible for). The current leadership won't blunder into a war over Taiwan, but their kids might.

With regard to your response to Publius, no one ever 'plans' a nuclear war. A nuclear war would be a conventional war that escalated. But if you've been to Taiwan, you know it is a lovely place (especially compared to the mainland) and its people probably don't want to be ruled by the cronies in Beijing. At some point, Beijing is going to get annoyed that the 'reunification' they've been pushing for isn't happening (because it won't happen peacefully at least until the PRC has some form of democracy -- and the CCP won't allow that). The PRC may then launch the long awaited 'million man swim', and, miscalculating exactly as Germany did in 1914, assume that the US won't bother to get involved. I can assure you that whatever administration is in power in 20XX, the US will have no choice but to intervene. Whether or not the war goes nuclear is not really the issue (although, of course, it makes a huge difference in how many people may die) -- but regardless of whether the war is nuclear or whether or not China wins, the end of the war would see China isolated, discredited, and with a destroyed economy. And, before someone jokes "yeah, just like the US in 2006", I mean really isolated, as in surrounded by enemies, and with a truly broken economy - no more exports and an aging, declining population.

This isn't a prediction but a possibility. The real concern is that China's real and growing problems may prompt this type of action by a tottering CCP that has not hesitated in the past to kill tens of millions to ensure its own survival, and may be tempted to do so again.

The possibility of escalation to nuclear war gives nations with the means to do so pause. Yes, the younger Chinese are nationalistic, more confident, and more brash at times (what young people aren't?). But you making assumptions with no more basis than 'well, they're wild-eyed nationalists, they can't be reasoned with.' I'm not saying nationalism can't cause wars (as it did WWI and II), but nukes are a game changer. I don't care how many nationalistic they are, the Chinese are perfectly able to comprehend concepts like MAD (the Soviets did), especially those who rise to the position where they make the decisions. Besides, young people are brash and reckless everywhere, and then grow cautious with age.

That is why the US and Soviets never openly confronted each other for half a century, only through proxies. Think of it this way, the Chinese got the Bomb in 1964, you know what China was like in '64? The Cultural Revolution. Political purges. The whole population re-educated in Maoism, a revolutionary ideology that preaches endless warfare and political struggle until the decadent imperial West is destroyed and a farmers' utopia or equivalent is established. And then nothing happened. No confrontation with the West. Even with China at it's most dangerous, ideologically driven to war with the West, with nukes and a military that has managed to draw the West in Korea. The Chinese considered Korea a win, in Clausewitzean terms, which gave them TREMENDOUS confidence in future confrontations with the West. The next confrontation was between Nixon and Mao, and that was a good thing.

Is China today (or tommorrow) more dangerous than Maoist China? Is hubris alone more dangerous than militant anti-Western ideology and hubris? It would make more sense if China was still Maoist or converted to Islam or something. That way if they, their friends and family, their nation, everything they know get vaporized in a nuclear storm at least they'd tried advanced to Marxism or become Martyrs in heaven. But Chinese society is wholly materialistic, and atheist, I don't think they're expecting 70 virgins when they die. Well, maybe an Undersecretary of the Department of the Interior of the Celestial Bureaucracy giving them the stink eye for making him fill out more paperwork.

I agree -- the current stronger, more properous China is infinitely preferable to the chaos-ridden China of the Mao years. Under Mao, China had a leader who seriously thought that a nuclear war wouldn't be all that bad. China's current leaders are more concerned with funding the retirement of their aging populatino. China now has a stake in the world -- through trade, particularly, and they certainly don't want to screw that up. So, absolutely, those will be the intentions of any generation of CCP political leadership. My comment is probably more to point out how sometimes political confrontations take on a life of their own. Also, and this is begging the point a little, but a non-nuclear war would be only slightly less devastating, so no one wants that either.

I agree also that the Chinese tend, very generally speaking, to be a pretty pragmatic lot (others have noted before that the Chinese are able to function quite well despite the annoyance of a de facto-independent Taiwan whereas the Arab world can't function at all due to the existence of Israel)- it's one of the things that is easy to admire about them, generally speaking; so it's true, the Chinese beaureacrats aren't interested in matyrdom, and they aren't interested in 72 virgins after they are dead. One or two live mistresses in Shenzhen would suit them better.

I wasn't comparing Maoist China and post-Mao China. I was more trying to make the point that during the time China was the most dangerous (to the West), during the late 60's early 70's, no hostile confrontation happened. China today is not even comparable in danger to Maoist China because it lacks a radical anti-Western ideology and a culture of matrydom, and even back then they had enough self-preservation to pull themselves back from the brink.
But back your original point of young Chinese nationalists being dangerous. You have to ask yourself if this is phenomena of being nationalist, or being young. I live in the midwestern United States, a region where there's not a lot of stuff going on, and every time I turn on the news I hear about some high school or college kid killing himself going 90 mph on some road and hitting a tree. It's a fact that young people are biologically and statistically inclined to be reckless, imagine themselves invincible, and hardly think of the consequences. Think about it. Acting stupid/reckless, and believing in stupid things (I should know, I was a nihilist/objectivist in high school) is part of the experience of being young. But you never let a reckless young person be in a position to make decisions that affect the lives of millions. What's the typical age of a Poliburo member? 60-70 years old? Since when do they let 20 year old Fenqings participate in their monthly policy meetings?

You make some good points. I was actually making a point in agreement with you, in that a strong, relatively rich China with a stake in the global system (i.e., China today and 20 years from now) is much preferable, and less dangerous, than China 30 years ago. The fact that confrontation was avoided in the past doesn't make it a certainty, however.

So, yes, we don't know that the next generation will be any more reckless than this one. We can hope that a Gorbouchev will arise who will refuse to use the PLA to crush his own people and disssemble the whole CCP police-state apparatus. A strong, nationalistic, but semi-democratic China is bound to have conflicts of interest with the US, but will probably be more likely to avoid war than the cabal of an unelected special interest group that will stop at nothing to continue clinging to power.

Freetrader,

I think we are pretty much in agreement here. I agree that the chances of confrontation is not 0%, but I believe it is the lowest it's been in 60 years.

I don't think you'll ever uproot nationalism from China, though. East Asian nations have always had an undercurrent of nationalism and xenophobia (see Korea and Japan), regardless of democracy or not. But I agree that democratic China is much better off.

There has already been a Chinese Gorbachev, Hu Yaobang, a high-ranking member and leader of the reformist faction in the CPC. It was for his funeral that led to 100,000 people to gather at Tienanmen Square in '89, which led to the protests, and the PLA response. It should be noted that the pro-Democracy protesters, including the Tank Man, were there to protest in support of a Politburo member. Even despite the protests, they couldn't destroy Hu Yaobang's reputation, because he was extremely popular with the people. And even today the Party adapted some of his policies, like combating corruption and bridging the rich/poor gap (of course, with varying degrees of success).

Now I don't support the CPC at all, but I do support reformist elements within the Party. Because a reform of the system, as oppose to a complete tear-down, is the best and perhaps only means of a peaceful transition to a democratic China. This is a position that is in line with the Tienanmen protesters and many modern-day China dissidents. I think this is a tenable position to take. Mao's political-military doctrine is that you can beat modern nations and armies with peasants, you can bleed a corrupt government or occupying force by attrition, but you never, ever, ever, ignore a pissed-off populace. Even though the present government doesn't ascribe to Maoism, this is one concept that stuck. The CPC is more afraid of it's own people than any government or NGO. Sometimes the Party responds to the people's protests and grievances positively, other times negatively, but they do respond.

There's certainly a lot of criticism to go around, but the situation definitely not black and white. Right now there's a lot of ambivalence among the Chinese on what aspect of China's progress takes priority: economic growth, workers' rights, addressing the rich/poor gap, lowering corruption, etc. But the pressure for political reform on the street level exists, traced back to Tienanmen, right underneath that surface.

PUBLICUS, you couldn't be further from the truth. Like their ideology or not, the current government have saved far more people since 1949 than they have killed. They have also developed China and saved it from the endless cycles of famine and despair. On almost any measure you care to name, China is far better off now (and the people in it) than at any time in its modern history.

The Chinese people, I'm sure, would appreciate more avenues to express their views. But Chinese people are not "us". Their values are different, their priorities are different, and even their concept of what it means to be "free" is different from ours. Censoring newspapers wouldn't be high in many peoples lists of daily concerns. Some people even like it- to them it's a sign of a good strong government protecting its people.

One comparison left out of all this discussion is Singapore. Singapore is more authoritarian than China, has a very tightly controlled media and society, yet is a huge success. It delivers great outcomes to people, and has all but eliminated poverty there. It has done this without the "freedoms" that we think are essential.

As to military spending, the US spends almost half the worlds military budget, alone. China has been spending more but its been on paying people better salaries and buying more modern equipment. They have been REDUCING the number of soldiers they have. China is in no way a threat to the current world order, least not a military one.

You are simply wrong about the supposed 'benefits' of communist rule. Yes, once the government stopped killing the peasants by the millions and allowed them to grow food for themselves, while to some extent freeing the economy for foreign investment, things got better. But don't make the foolish 'Stalin made Russia Great' argument. To see China without communism, try Taiwan.

Singapore is not to everyone's taste but it is a successful country and the PRC would certainly love to emulate it. But you have a fundamental misconception -- dictatorship (even a benign one like Singapore's) is not SUFFICIENT to create a successful country. Singapore has a western-style justice system, a true 'rule of law', true capitalism, not crony capitalism, and a relative absence of corruption. China has none of these things, and will never have them as long as the CCP clings to power.

I have been studying China for a long time, and I know my facts. People have died, and died at the hands of the CCP during its governance, but to characteristic it's earlier period of rule as "killing peasants" is wrong. If you have followed the scholarship in the west on the "great famine" that has been blamed, traditonally, on the CCP, you would see that even that terrible event has been found to be more complex than previously thought. The general concensus emerging, after much research, is that the famine wasn't cause by the government, but at worst made worse than it needed to be by policy failure. If you look at scholarhsip by people like Lee Feigon (US) there is a picture of the Cultural Revolution as a time of terrible suffering for many, but even during this period China progressed in many ways. And these are the bad times.

There are very few China shcolars today who would characterise the CCP as 'people killers'. Its factually correct to place them in a generally positive light. They did indeed end the cycle of famines that have plagued China for centuries. They impose politcal stability the likes of which China hasnt seen for a long time, and have raised the living standards, even before foreign investment, of millions of people. Even if you take the ost irrational and unsupported death rates in China after 1949 for the famine and the CR, the CCP has still saved many more lives than died under their watch, and developed the country incredibly.

I did not make any comparisons to Stalin. There is none to be made, diferent countries with very different styles of leadership. The real comparison with the well being of China is actually India. The CCP isn't "clining to power" because if you look at opinion polls done by American groups in China, you will see that a very large majority hold the CCP in Beijing in very high regard. Most western leaders would be envious of the approval ratings. Corruption at a local level is the real problem, and would exist in CHina regardless of who is in power. This is THE big issue for China, and it's not unique to the CCP. The Nationalist party, when they were in charge, were even more corrupt.

As to Taiwan, if you look at your history texts you will see they grew rich after massive foreign investment, and they did it be centrally planning their national industrial strategy. They then sold this off to private interests in taiwan who had connections to the government in a massive display of corruption. Taiwan is not, in that sense, at all a model for anyone.

My assertions are factually correct, please check the record.

You are correct that rule of law is important, and the CCP acknowledges that. It's continually develops that, and there is no argument anywhere that that's not important. Without a good system of law its hard to do business. The law China now has though, as imperfect as it is, is the best its had in its long history. You need to be mindful of the context. Its easy in the US to be critical of lack of law- the US inherited these traditions from the UK. China is struggling to build its own system, and its is changing for the better.

Singapore, however, does not have "true capitalism". Its a mixed economy, with a very pragmatic mix of what would be called "socialist" policy by Americans, and 'free market' style structure. This is what's so attractive about it- isn't trapped in ideological constraints, they pick and choose what they think works best for their given context.

Oh, so very few scholars today would view the CCP as 'killers'? I'm certainly willing to believe that, since, based on my wide experience of university life, I am convinced that academics can talk themselves into anything; indifference to human suffering is one of the distinguishing trademarks of the academic intellectual.

Look, it is a simple fact that the CCP came to power in no small party by undermining the KMT during the war with Japan (btw - the CCP's winning World War II was one of the hilarious claims that Mao made on his deathbed and that people in China seem to widely believe). It is a simple fact that the CCP killed millions in its collectivisation programs, that tens of millions more died due to Mao's stupid agricultural policies, that millions died during the Cultural Revolution, and that three generations of Chinese were essentially wasted chasing an absurd collectivist vision. It is a simple fact that China's growth - even during the past 30 years - has been financed by stealing the wealth of the peasants and funneling it back into the industrial and urban centers. You talk about the CCP breaking the 'endless cycle' of agricultural poverty in the same breath in which you causually admit to 'a few million' dying due to the CCP's agriculatural policy.

Let's face it, all China ever needed was some modern farming techniques and a stronger central government - you don't have to kill 50 million people to achieve that, unless you really just like killing people.

I find it quite telling that you dismiss Taiwan so easily -- "Oh, sure, it has democracy, it is rich, it has the rule of law, and the average person in Taiwan is almost unbelelievably better off than in China, but some cronies allegedly made money on government deals, so, bu yao Taiwan!" Hilarious - as if the entire edifice of the modern CCP weren't simply a monument to crony capitalism and corrupt self dealing.

So, in the end, what are the lives of 50 million or so peasants among friends? They aren't important. At least the capitalists didn't get rich!

And let's not even discuss North Korea, whose people live in an endless nightmare, thanks to the good ol' CCP.

Look, under any fair assessment, the CCP gets an F- for its first 30 years of rule. They probably deserve a C+ for the past 30. But a few good years of economic growth (that disproportionately benefit the well-connected) can undo the horror of what came before, and no amount of panda diplomacy can obscure the fact that the CCP is an incredibly corrupt organization that rules, in end, through simple terror.

FREETRADER, firstly I didnt claim China is a "peoples paradise" by any means. I also wasn't being indifferent to the suffering in China at all, I described those events as the "bad days" and any death is terrible, even its only a handful of people. Disscussing positive achievements doesn’t excuse negative ones, its just looking at the whole picture, something you haven’t been doing.

It’s not a fact that the CCP came to power by undermining the Nationalists. The Nationalists were generally unpopular, elitist and corrupt and failed on all levels. They only have themselves to blaim- the CCP were the only ones listening to what the farmers in China wanted.

You have been over simplistic in your description of the deaths of people in China after 1949. No one is denying that many people lost their lives, and this is terrible. Many did die in the collectivisiation, but many collectivised farms worked and did well, lifting the standard of living for many. The results of this were a patch work of results- some places it worked, others it didn’t. More nuanced studies attribute failures to many reasons, some of them pre 1949 issues, some a failure of CCP policy. To blaim all of this on one factor is misleading and not factual.

The Cultural Revolution was started by Mao. He even regretted it himself. But he regretted it because he lost control of the country. To blame him exclusively for it is a cop out. He does deserve some of the blame but not all it. Still, while it was in progress, some sectors of the economy did well, and continued to lay solid foundations for China. Life expectancy and death rates in China actually decreased compared to the decades preceeding it (fact). Again, you can consult works like Lee Feigon for more detailed info. in this regard. To view this period in a balanced fashion is not to deny the death and chaos that ensued, but to understand the period in all its complexity.

“China's growth - even during the past 30 years - has been financed by stealing the wealth of the peasants and funneling it back into the industrial and urban centers”. Yes, growth in the last 30 years has been way of explotation of farmers. This is the same process by which the US and Europe gained much of their wealth, but they usually did it by exploiting colonial or semi-colonial subjects. The CCP is paying very low wages to its own poor, but these wages, while not good enough, go a long way in the rural areas they come from. So while I’d agree its not the best situation, its again not a simple issue and many rural areas have benefited from this. Ironically, it’s the demand of capitilaist systems that have created this period of exploitation in China.

Taiwan is certainly not relevtn to this kind of debate. Yes it is doing well, but is it a model for China? When the nationists were on control of the mainland of China they were dictatorial (far more so than the CCP, even now), lacked popular support, and were the most corrupt modern government in China. When they fled to Taiwan they imposed a dictatorship that was far more restrictive than the system in China. They were flooded with much more foreign capital than the whole of China, deliberately so in a Cold War context. They then CENTERALLY PLANNED their economy, and ruthlessly exploited their workers. This to me, doesn’t seem a relevant model at all. Of coaurse Tiawan enjoys a higher standard of living- with the amount of foreign capital pumped into it during the cold war it would be pretty strange if it didn’t enjoy this.

And how relevant is north Korea? I don’t see the connection. North Korea is a Stalinist style state, with very little in common with China.

Your argument is weak because it ultimately lacks any sort of context. The CCP did not come to power in 1949 after winning a quiet election in a developed country. The nationalists had taken all the gold reserves, burnt or stolen government records. There was almost no functioning railroads, industrial output had been destroyed, and the country was a wreck after foreign occupation and civil war. In that context any party that took power would have found itself, not matter which direction it turned, facing crisis after crisis as it tried to rebuild China. It’s hard to say “what if”, but one wonders how much worse it would have been, looking at the record of the nationalists when they were in China. The CCP did make many mistakes, but there were triumphs to.

FREETRADER< I have to add to, the idea that the CCP maintains power through terror very very funny. I find my own countries police far more terrifying than the Chinese. For me, and for regular Chinese people, the most pressing concern is surviving the traffic! Road accidents kill around 100,000 people per year.

As I said in a previous post, the signs of a police state are just not here either on the ground or in statistical figures.

So, you are more afraid of 'your country's police' than the police in China. Wow, either you live in North Korea, or are very ignorant. The Chinese police are among the most corrupt in the world -- and that's not even addressing the issue of their serving a police state. You mention traffic accidents in China -- when there is an accident, the police show up, take bribes from both sides, and drive away. If you don't pay a bribe, you get arrested. So, that comment alone shows you probably don't deserve to be taken seriously.

You menton 'context' of history but you seem oblivious to the fact that the KMT's failures were directly related to the predations of the Japanese in the Second World War - something the CCP took full advantage of (when they weren't killing each other in purges).

I certainly am capable of looking at the 'big picture' -- after all, I live in China and am fully aware of the positives that exist in China. I am also aware that the negatives include an unbelievably cynical attitude, at all levels, regarding the government and society. THAT is the legacy of the CCP -- a society that almost can't function, and where the only consistent theme is self preservation.

Your comment about 'foreign capital' developing Taiwan is ridiculous. Taiwan received very little foreign foreign capital -- they built their economy from the ground up. They did not have the same all encompassing industrial policy that Korea and Japan had, much less China - the Taiwanese did it on their own, with small shops producing transitor radios. The idea that the KMT imposed a more harsh police state on Taiwan than the CCP in China -- well, again, that comment just shows that you can't be taken seriously in any of your judgments.

The fact that you believe that Western capitalism is built on 'colonial exploitation' and that collectivation was no worse than capitalism simply shows where you are coming from -- you are a clueless, unreconstructive collectivist. How many people have to die before you idiots realize that collectivation doesn't work? Are you going to seriously claim, like some addled member of Baader Meinhoff faction, that capitalism is based on 'exploiting the third world.'

BTW - regarding North Korea -- do you really mean to imply that you are unaware that the DPRK is a client state of the PRC, and only kept running by its support of the Kim regime? Do you seriously not know that?

You really think the 'collectivised farms worked and did well, raising the standard of living for many'? Oh, man, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that. Take the land and the produce away the peasants and make them rich -- sure, that worked in both Russia and China, didn't it? Perhaps you weren't aware the the economic growth of the past 30 years actually began in the mid-1970s when a small group of farmers illegally broke up their collective farms and started farming separately -- that's when production began to skyrocket and the periodic government caused famines mostly ended. IThings had reached such a crisis - China was such a basket case - that the government looked the other way. Deng saw that it worked, and the rest is history. It was uncollectivizing the farmers that saved China pal. Too bad that couldn't have had proper land reform 30 years earlier. It's just sad that someone in the year 2010 can seriously claim that collectivation was good for the farmers!

I think you need to get a job outside of academia my friend -- the real world isn't some college bull session where you can prattle on about perfecting man through socialist labor.

So, in closing, you are the person in this discussion who is unable to see the big picture, my friend. I will say, though, that China has been heading in generally the right directilon for the past 30 years. The creation of the SEZs 30 years ago and the relative openness to the world since then has been greatly beneficial to the Chinese people, even though the gains are unevenly spread, and I support these trends. It's just too bad that the CCP had to kill 30-50 million people before realizing that breaking up the collectives, attracting foreign investment and engaging with the world through trade was the only way forward for China.

(part1) FREETRADER, im not Canadian so Im not sure where the comment on Canadian cops comes from. I was talking about the police and its relationship to the state in the context of the notion that China is a 'police state'. The cops in South Korea are corrupt (more so than in China) and many other countries you hear the same story re. petty corruption. Even Australia was corrupt that way until a big clean up in the 1980s. My comments were directed on a political level, which is where I assumed the debate was.

The KMTs failures were not as a result of the Japanese. The KMT chose to redirect their attention away from the Japanese and direct their efforts at the communists. Your grasp of elementary history is simply wrong. I teach history and you can check this basic stuff in any high school history text book! Again, re. Taiwan development, please consult a textbook. This is pretty basic factual stuff. Regarding US aid, "The value of these flows averaged around $100 million per annum between 1951 and 1965 (Council for Economic Planning & Development, 2001), almost 10 per cent of GNP in the early years, before they were phased-out in 1970." + they had all the financial resources they stole/took from Beijing (almost Chinas entire reserve of gold).

I agree a legacy of the politics since 1949 is a cynical attitude, this springs from the cultural revolution. We can agree on that. I also acknoweldeged there are many problems (I didn't idealise the place at all, I also live here and deal with many frustrations). To go so far as to say its "...society that almost can't function, and where the only consistent theme is self preservation." is impossible given all the rapid change you see around, most of it (but not all of it) positive. The kind of changes in China now taking place would not be possible in a society that's disfunctional. Your judegment simply doesn't add up.

(part 2)

Its also not disputed by anyone that KMT rule was harsher than mainland China. I would like to see your sources on that. The KMT imposed a dictatorship that imposed its will on all people, and discriminated in favour of new arrivals. It was brutal, and has been called "fascist" by many.

Capitalism WAS built on foreign exploitation. I don't want to go into another history lesson. I did not say "... that collectivation was no worse than capitalism". As I pointed out in many places it failed. But in some places it worked. When Deng tried to force collectives and coops to dispand, many refused because it was better, in that area, than the "new system". Some prominent tourist water towns in China are still actually collectives or coops. I am simply stating facts here, and you really need to check yours and read what I'm writing carefully. I think you are looking for black and white "right/wrong" statements here and not getting that Im trying to discuss the complexity of the actual situation. We get nowhere by making blanket statements that are inaccurate.

Of course I'm aware that the DPRK is a client state of China This does not mean that it shares the same political system. Don't you understand the difference between Stalinism, Communism, Market Socialism and Socialism?

"I think you need to get a job outside of academia my friend" I think you need to stop being abusive and stick to the debate. Being abusive doesn't win a debate, it just makes you look like a kid.

I'm a teacher, not an academic. The "real world" is not black and white, its complex and needs to be understood using facts and putting those facts into a context. Restating your facts, when they have been called into question, doesn't further the debate. You are peddling ideas that were outdated about 20 years ago. We owe a debt to academics here and in the west who work to uncover the truth.

I am not saying China is some kind of paradise. I'm not saying there are not problems. What I am saying is that the job the CCP have, in THIS CONTEXT, has been very difficult and it would have been very hard to do this, regardless of your politics. I have not endorsed the CCP- im simply trying to clear the air on a few myths so we all understand it, and its context, better. The CCP's legacy is complex, but it can't be ignored there are some real achievments.

FREETRADER, I just realised I missed your section on economic growth, "Perhaps you weren't aware the the economic growth of the past 30 years actually began in the mid-1970s ". Actually, the economy has been estimated to have grown at about 6-7% DURING the cultural revolution. This was faster than any other developing nation at that time. This provided the spring board for later development.

Again, please check your facts. Two good authors are Lee Faigon and Mobo Gao. They have carefully started to dig into some interesting issues. There are other authors, but they are a good start and are quite provocative. Take them with a grain of salt, but they do have some compelling new angles on some issues. Really good.

Yes, we are still trapped in a Cold War mentality/Hollywood movie (good vs evil). Reality is more grey than that, and we need to come to terms with the differences, and there are many. They will never be "us" and we will never be "them". Let's celebrate the difference and move on.

Most Chinese, rich or poor, are going to support their country, especially in front of foreigners. That said, I wouldn't use the sample of a few privileged high-schoolers as evidence of anything except the ignorance of the Chinese teenager. It isn't the US that is trying to hem China in -- unless the US wants to give China free rein to run things on their side of the Pacific -- giving their very own Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere -- the US will have to deal an increasingly irritable, insecure and demographically bankrupt CCP that may decide to "giddy people's minds with foreign quarrels."

FREETRADER, a note on public opinion. As I pointed out in another response, it's clear from public opinion polls that the CCP is very popular. This is because when asked to prioritise issues of importance, "freedom of expression" is very low on peoples list in China. The CCP are addressing the right issues, in the China context.

Sure the CCP is popular; just ask it! They are delivering 8% year on year growth, year after year, by pumping money into the economy. No public dissent or criticsm of party rule is allowed. The government wants very much to remain popular, which is why it is taking more and more aggressive stances internationally. Of course, since China is a dictatorship the party's popularity is irrelevant, and most people figure they are stuck with the CCP. I wonder what people would say if you asked them whether they would like democracy?

FREETRADER people have been asked here in opinion polls their attitudes to things like democratic reform, and its very low down their list of priorities. It's simply, right now, not a very important issue for most regular people in China. Please check the literature on this before making comment.

Im not sure if you have been to China. I have lived here 9 years. This does not make me an expert by any means, but if you travel around here you will see remarkably few police or soldiers. There are fewer soldiers and police per person here than in my home country. It's not the kidn of police state people imagine. It is definately held together partly because people, at the moment, support the party in some way. If they didn't, the country would probably very quickly experience great upheaval. So it is very important to the party that they are popular.

While it is frowned up to directly critisize the party, there is a culture here of indirect critisism, and a flourishing bulliten board online culture the government can't control.