Mark Steyn: Who can stop the rise and rise of China? The communists, of course

The Sunday Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | 06/12/05 | Mark Steyn

[devolve]

[expatguy]

One of Steyn's last comments seemed to elicit little notice.

"China won't advance to the First World with its present borders intact."

I'm not really sure what Steyn meant by this.

An American Expat in Southeast Asia

[Larry Lucido]

Russia and Europe have no future at all

No doubt about Europe. But is Steyn correct about Russia? I hold out more hope for her than for the EU.

[goldstategop]

You can combine Leninist politics with capitalism. But the two are always in tension and sooner or later the Chinese system will hit a dead end. A developing society cannot become stable and and protect the fruits of its economic gains without freedom as well the rule of law. The latter characteristics, including the nascent middle class are still weak in China and what wealth there is has been unevenly distributed. For the moment China's Communist rulers don't need to worry about the contradictions between economics and democracy because the forces that pose a threat can be suppressed, contained and bought off by the power of the state and its ability to bribe its people into submission to the rulers' desires. Still, a day of reckoning is inevitable. I don't think there will be an Asian Century unless China gets its political house in order. The Anglosphere is still going to set the pace as Mark Steyn correctly observes, for the rest of the world to follow.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[LibertarianInExile]

It's Armand Hammer, oh-so-wise one. You'd prefer to blame our present situation with China on the Clintons, but the sellouts go back far further than you'd like to admit. And that 'wedge' logic is just an excuse because again, Nixon had a -R after his name. That same excuse could have been used with Franco's Spain ("we kept him from aligning with Hitler!"). Never mind that Fascist Spain wasn't about to align with Hitler other than where convenient for Spain. Never mind that the Chinese weren't about to align with the Soviets other than where convenient for China. It was appeasement to deal with the Chinese. It was appeasement to deal with a country that is set against us, no matter how we like to imagine otherwise.

Certainly, Nixon was a better option than McGovern or Humphrey, but he was no conservative. I believe he was only anti-Communist where he believed it would be to his political advantage. He was purely a political animal. I'm sorry that you prefer to play the "mind-numbed robot" to the extent that you blind yourself to history of American involvement in China and Nixon's mistake there, and to the point where you laugably pretend that Nixon was concerned about Mao's butchery, but I'm not about to join you in fantasyland. I suppose I should have been warned by your chosen freeper name.

[maica]

I believe he was only anti-Communist where he believed it would be to his political advantage.

%%%%%

On what do you base this opinion? Nixon may not have been as conservative as you would like, but you are the first commentator that I have read that doubts his deep antipathy to Communism.

Besides having an R behind his name, the main reason that Nixon was reviled by the media of the time was his successful prosecution of Alger Hiss - a commie darling of the left.

[Moonman62]

When European analysts coo about a "Chinese century", all they mean is "Oh, God, please, anything other than a second American century".

How many times have I heard Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton speak of the inevitable decline of the United States?

[Jackknife]

Bump for post-golf reading.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[PGalt]

OUTSTANDING! Mark Steyn is OUTSTANDING! Thanks for posting.

[mr_hammer]

Very insightful, solid reasoning!

[Dog Gone]

I rarely disagree with Steyn, but I think he missed the mark here.

First of all, China abandoned communism about 20 years ago. It's capitalistic, but it's state-run. That's fascism, not communism.

They kept the name of the Party, but that's it.

The Party considered political reform and an introduction of political freedom, but they freely admit that they felt they had to make a choice between democracy and getting rich. They chose rich.

The final point where Steyn is wrong is that the Chinese intend to force 400 million of their rural residents into the major cities over the next 15 years. So they will participate, to some extent, in the growing Chinese economy. They'll be the cheap labor that assembles the cars for export to europe and America.

Fascism does work. And as long as you don't desire to dissent and aren't at the bottom of the economic ladder, it's a far better existence than under true communism.

China is a 4,000 year old country and has essentially governed itself that entire time, with very brief periods of foreign occupation. The borders have changed very little.

It's not going to unravel this century.

[hattend]

Steyn BTTT

[Destro]

You just answered this article perfectly.

[WireAndWood]

Couldn't afford the elevator?


So...he's still down there?

[prairiebreeze]

bttt

[LibertarianInExile]

I base it on listening to the tapes. You may disagree, but based on listening to those tapes, Nixon was a man who seemed to be obsessed with power above all else. And I doubt he was as "obsessed" with anticommunism as he was in the 50s by the time of his Presidency, or he wouldn't have Vietnamized or gone to China.

That the media hates someone does not make them a conservative. If that were true, there'd be a hell of a lot more conservatives.

[lawgirl]

I love steyn bump!

[Rummyfan]

The 21st century will be an Anglosphere century, with America, India and Australia leading the way. Anti-Americans betting on Beijing will find the China shop is in the end mostly a lot of bull.

BTTT!!! Thanks Pokey!

[Paul Ross]

He seems to be confident that their edifice will split apart. I am not so sanguine about that. They clearly are intent on more expansion...and have the military to back it up. Their eyes are on Taiwan, the Phillipines, Thailand, Cambodia, the Straits of Malaaca, etc. They have even made noises about Australia...commenting how underpopulated, and resource-rich, their former "discovery" still is.

Anyways, if Tibet and the Muslim provinces can't break away, and they steadily ratchet up the screws on Hong Kong, I guess I would not count on their kindly self-destructing implosively. That is not to say there aren't tensions, and potentials for revolution we can and should be exploiting. We should. But we sure aren't right now.