China in Revolt

Commentary ^ | December 2006 | Gordon G. Chang

[Zhang Fei]

This long article leaves out much. For starters, it is not universal among Chinese that the studen protests in Tianamen were a good thing, that putting them down was a bad thing. This writer ignores significant Chinese history that weighs heavily in the opinions of many Chinese, many of whom suffered directly under Mao. Many welcome stability and the one party system over what they had before. They want nothing to do with student movements that brought such misery on the land. This writer can be likened to a liberal utopian in the U.S., full of ideal and short on practical reality.

I think your theory of revolution is that it arises out of national consensus. I think it does, but not in the way you think. Chang's theory (and mine) is that nobody likes revolution. So how does it happen? A few political entrepreneurs (call them revolutionaries) get it into their heads that they have what it takes to destroy the existing dynasty. There are always people like that lurking around. But they only really rise to the surface when the population at large begins to lose its fear of the government's coercive apparatus. And that is what is happening today.

Chang's view isn't that a single revolt will sweep the Party aside. It is that a successful Chinese revolution will follow the pattern of Chinese history. The path to victory will be paved with failed revolts involving large numbers of dead. An increasing number of large-scale revolts will induce in the Chinese population a feeling that regime change is inevitable.* This will bring more contenders for power to the surface, including some ex-Party people who have decided that the Party has lost its legitimacy. And eventually, one of the rival contenders will win power. I don't think that a democracy is likely to replace Party rule - the only reason a Chinese rebel would risk everything is to gain everything.

So why would the average Chinese risk his life taking sides in such a revolution? The reality is that the average Chinese will be a bystander, just as he has been in every other dynasty change in Chinese history. He will not risk his life in behalf of either the Party or its opponents. And after the Party is extinguished, life for the Chinese everyman will go on as it has for millenia.

* As Mao said, a single spark can start a prairie fire. Once any kind of revolutionary momentum gets going, the growing feeling of inevitability among the populace can be extremely destabilizing for existing regimes. This is why all Chinese dynasties, including the current one, have traditionally been very watchful for signs of sedition. But it is also why every single one of them has been replaced by a new dynasty headed up by a more vigorous contender for power - once the ball gets rolling, every submerged grievance and ambition rises to the surface.

[Steel Wolf]

Interestingly enough, the average Chinese obeys or doesn't obey the law based on the likelihood he will be caught. I think his thesis, that Chinese are rapidly losing (without having completely lost) their fear of the government is correct. It's complicated.

A very interesting point. When I was in China I was amazed at the open disregard most Chinese people have for the law. While they do maintain a healthy fear of offending the state, they think nothing of any other crime, except how likely it is it will cause a repercussion.

Americans don't understand this, because they're the kind of people who will sit at a red light at 2AM, when they're the only car on the road, and wait for it to turn green.

In China, I saw people do and say things to cops that would have you tasered and locked up in seconds here. Not that the Chinese cops aren't brutal when the time calls for it, but it seems that only crimes that threaten the state draw violence. I saw a group of 60 odd well dressed, middle aged protesters, who may have been Falun Gong, rounded up by the People's Armed Police, and they were quite rough with them. They were herding them like cattle, with cops standing at the periphery of the group, barking like dogs and using batons on those who weren't huddling to the middle. They were all plainly terrified.

I've never seen an American react to a cop with the sheer cringing terror that I saw in those Chinese. Yet in almost every other case, people are very rude to the cops, and seem to ignore or berate them at will. We expect our cops to generally be civil with us, and we are usually civil with them. That concept doesn't seem to exist in China.

[Zhang Fei]

What happens when a couple, both of whom were an only child, are taking care of four elderly parents and maybe a grandparent or two? Will the wife, for example, say it is not her duty and her parents are left without care and when the parents can't make it any longer, they become homeless and die? What happens when this is repeated on a massive scale?

Neither homelessness nor food are issues. The government compels children to provide food and shelter for their elderly parents, on pain of criminal penalties.* And as I wrote earlier, China has gone beyond subsistence living. The average Chinese has more than enough food to survive and has been in that condition even before the economic reforms of the 1980's. The difference today is that the food includes meat and seafood, and rice as an afterthought, whereas the pre-reform diet was mostly rice and (Chinese) pickles.

* China hasn't reverted to the old imperial laws under which parents could have unfilial children put to death, but being a Chinese son or daughter does carry with it filial obligations as a matter of Chinese criminal law.

[Steel Wolf]

All I'm saying is that lifelong bachelorhood is a traditional part of Chinese history, whereas permanent revolution isn't, despite the pervasiveness and persistence of that phenomenon.

One factor that may change that is that China is absorbing a lot more subconsious Westernness than they realize. They're a clever, competative group, and the march for wealth and modernization is changing their culture more than Mao ever did.

The increasingly modern Chinese males won't be satisfied with their station in life, as they were in centuries prior. Time's are a changing, and lifelong bachelorhood won't be seen as an acceptable a lifestyle as it was in older times.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

Interestingly enough, the average Chinese obeys or doesn't obey the law based on the likelihood he will be caught. I think his thesis, that Chinese are rapidly losing (without having completely lost) their fear of the government is correct. It's complicated.

China performed more than 3400 executions in 2004. It was 90% of the total worldwide. Including executions for non violent "white collar" crimes.

Yes indeed......they should fear getting caught.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

Bottom line is that Chinese are fiercely entrepreneurial and competitive (with each other). Communism kept this suppressed for a while. It is this competitive spirit that will bring China out of its economic slumber.

hmmm....you may be on to something.

[hubbubhubbub]

I don't think you understand the pervasiveness of the corruption here in the U.S. either.

[RightWhale]

Yesterday there was an assertion on a thread that Russia is doomed by its demographics, and this is not hard to see, but also China is doomed by its demographics and this is not so clear. Is China approaching a Social Security crisis as they limit births and the population approaches retirement?

[Zhang Fei]

I don't think you understand the pervasiveness of the corruption here in the U.S. either.

Actually, as an American, I do understand that corruption isn't pervasive in the US, and not from the business press either - I know businesspeople on both sides of the Pacific. A key advantage China has is that a businessperson doesn't have to obey any (labor, environmental, et al) laws as long as he pays* the relevant government departments off. (This advantage is in addition to lower land and labor costs, of course). The importance of an unregulated business environment (resulting from payoffs) is going to increase as Chinese factor costs go up.

* Since he has to pay them off to stay in business anyway, he might as well flout the regulations for which the government bureaucrats are responsible.

[Zhang Fei]

Yesterday there was an assertion on a thread that Russia is doomed by its demographics, and this is not hard to see, but also China is doomed by its demographics and this is not so clear. Is China approaching a Social Security crisis as they limit births and the population approaches retirement?

You have such crises only if the government makes promises it can't keep, and chooses not to renege (by reducing benefits or making eligibility requirements more stringent). The Chinese government makes no such promises. Besides, our very own Social Security crisis could be fixed by increasing the retirement age to 75.

[RightWhale]

What could be the Chinese demographic crisis that was mentioned in passing yesterday?

[Zhang Fei]

For example, the life expectancy at the time Social Security was implemented was 65. Retirement age back then was 60. Today, life expectancy is about 80. Setting the retirement age at 75 is actually pretty reasonable.

[RightWhale]

James Brown would agree. He worked til he dropped. Didn't quite make it to the age of retirement--75.

[Zhang Fei]

I've never seen an American react to a cop with the sheer cringing terror that I saw in those Chinese. Yet in almost every other case, people are very rude to the cops, and seem to ignore or berate them at will. We expect our cops to generally be civil with us, and we are usually civil with them. That concept doesn't seem to exist in China.

I think the fundamental difference is that an American cop who beats an imprisoned demonstrator almost to death and then has his organs sold to an organ transplant unit could get the gas chamber, whereas a Chinese cop who does the same thing could get promoted. And the Chinese demonstrators know it. Nonetheless, it is remarkable that they chose to demonstrate despite their knowledge of what could happen - it shows that they're able to control their fear. I'm not sure whether the demonstrators are losing their fear of the government or they're losing their fear of death. If it's the second, and it's a widespread phenomenon, the government should prepare for some rough waters ahead.

[westmichman]

Thanks for posting this. I have been a Commentary subscriber for over 20 years and this article is another good reason why.

[SoCal Pubbie]

For my late mother it was the "Starving Armenians". She was born in 1915.

[Zack Nguyen]

Because demonstrators have yet to link up across the country, and do not clearly exhibit the signs of a truly destabilizing movement—generalized anger...China’s citizens are still not seen as posing any particular danger to the People’s Republic.

Perhaps we should help them link up.

[Natural Law]

The model that China is now following is that of Singapore; both authoritarian and successful.

[untenured]

Bottom line is that Chinese are fiercely entrepreneurial and competitive (with each other).

And nationalistic, at least at this moment in their history. I am continually surprised at how the mere mention of Taiwan draws anger in my Chinese business students. They view its quasi-independence as unfinished business, as I suspect many of China's higher strata view the 19th century humiliations that gave the Russians parts of Siberia. There is nothing new about this; nations that see themselves as rising have always wanted to assert their claim on what they see as their rightful share of world spoils. (Think Japan in the first half of the 20th century, Germany prior to the Franco-Prussian war, the U.S. during the Manifest Destiny era.)

The combination of a quarter-century of transformational growth (raising expectations for the continued accrual of national power), perceived historical grievances, a demographically weak Russia and Japan as neighbors, a political system, economy and social cohesion perhaps increasingly held together by bailing wire, a government in need of a diversion for public discontent, and all those excess young men, and it doesn't seem like a "peaceful rise," in the propagandistic government phrasing, is the most likely outcome.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

Actually, as an American, I do understand that corruption isn't pervasive in the US, and not from the business press either - I know businesspeople on both sides of the Pacific.

But it is.

A bribe in America is called a "contribution". e.g.contributions to Clinton's "Presidential Library" slush fund or contributions to Jesse Jackson's "PUSH" fund.

These politicians and lawyers are essentially shakedown artists. Similar to Al Capone's protection rackets of the twenties.

The latest gimmick is the carbon trading schemes politicians are advancing.

It's essentially old wine poured into new bottles.

>...............

The whole aim of practical politics," wrote H.L. Mencken in 1920, "is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."