China in Revolt

Commentary ^ | December 2006 | Gordon G. Chang

[painter]

Bump!

[Zhang Fei]

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.

I don't think you understand. In China, a guy operating a restaurant needs to pay off every government department that touches on his business. Does a guy in the US need to do this? We are talking about a system where low-level government officials like drivers and cops go on vacations (not informational junkets or conferences - vacations) paid for with bribes from various businesses that they cover. Businesspeople in China are paying a significant percentage of their revenues to government officials. Do American businesses pay 5% of their revenues to government officials? Chinese businesses can and do.

Political contributions in the US go towards election campaigns. The use of campaign funds to buy personal items can be and is prosecuted. Bribery in China has nothing to do with the political process and everything to do with personal gain.

In America, people and corporations contribute to the parties that agree with them. A Democrat is not going to support increased defense spending simply because Boeing contributes money to his political campaign. A Republican isn't going to support vivisections of Falungong followers simply because a Chinese-American pressure group sends money his way. Besides, all of this is publicly documented so that voters can figure out who supports such and such a politician.

In China, everything is under the table. And it's strictly pay-for-service. A businessman can have any personal political views he wants. But if he wants to continue operating in China, he needs to pay everyone off - the number of licenses you need to operate a business in China are mind-boggling - every Chinese government department has edicts governing everything under the sun so that the department's employees can get bonus (bribe) money that can quadruple their pay. If he wants to prevent new laws and regulations from zinging his business - that's a whole separate budget right there.

It's not simply the executive branch - what I've heard from Chinese acquaintances is that civil lawsuits in China are a matter of buying judges. I personally know of a case where a lawsuit went three rounds - it was finally decided in favor of an acquaintance when he outbid his opponent.

When you say corruption in the US is like that in China, you are trivializing the extent of it in China and exaggerating what exists here. Fallujah isn't Stalingrad and political contributions aren't bribes.

[Zhang Fei]

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.)

I don't think this has all that much to do with the Communist Party at all. China has always thought of itself as the only civilized country around, and the rest of the world as barbarians. China's name for itself isn't the Middle Kingdom - it's the Central Kingdom - central as in the center of the world. It is China's destiny to conquer and a perversion of the natural order of things for it to be conquered. This is why land that has ever been Chinese territory needs to revert to Chinese control. What you are seeing over Taiwan is simply the tip of the iceberg.

Richard Pipes once said the Soviet Union was a strategic threat not because it was Communist but because it was Russian. I think the same thing holds for China - much like Hitler trying to revive the glory of the Roman Empire, China aims to revive the empire that reserved to itself the right to appoint the kings of the tributary states that existed in East Asia at China's pleasure. The Chinese would like to revive for China a bygone world in which the Emperor Qianlong (during the late 18th century) felt comfortable writing to King George III at the end of a letter rejecting his request for additional trading facilities: "Tremblingly obey and show no negligence!"

[Republican Party Reptile]

In the grand scheme of things, 36 billion dollars is not that much, it's approx. 4% of Chiness GDP ...

Heck, there are a few private citizens in the USA who by themselves are worth more than 36 billion dollars.

U.S. defense budget for 2006 was approx. 419 billion dollars, also approx. 4% of US GDP. (and many of us would say that we aren't spending nearly enough)

[BJungNan]

In other words, here comes the second cultural revolution. China does not need that again. Whoever has it in their heads that they can bring about what you say they are trying to do is playing a very dangerous game. Not dangerous in the sense of them personally but in the great damage they will do. Fools they are.

Most Chinese do not want to go there and for very, very good reason: They lived it.

[BJungNan]

Is China approaching a Social Security crisis as they limit births and the population approaches retirement?

Yes, they have the same problem.

[BJungNan]

* 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.

You absolutely do NOT have to "pay off" or otherwise bribe government officials to stay in business in China. You follow the rules otherwise it catches up to you.

[BJungNan]

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

Add to that Hong Kong raw capitalism and I will agree with you.

[Zhang Fei]

You absolutely do NOT have to "pay off" or otherwise bribe government officials to stay in business in China. You follow the rules otherwise it catches up to you.

Whether you follow the rules or not is up to you. But you need to pay them off to stay in business. Since your competition has no incentive to follow the rules, given that they have to pay the same government officials off and not following the rules is cheaper, most businesses flout the law just to stay in business.

[Zhang Fei]

In other words, here comes the second cultural revolution. China does not need that again. Whoever has it in their heads that they can bring about what you say they are trying to do is playing a very dangerous game. Not dangerous in the sense of them personally but in the great damage they will do. Fools they are. Most Chinese do not want to go there and for very, very good reason: They lived it.

Again, you've missed the point. Forget the Cultural Revolution - that limits the scope a little too much. I don't think any Chinese have wanted any of the other prior revolutions or civil wars of the past thousands of years. Once the ball gets rolling, it's unstoppable. It's not about what the masses want or don't want. It's about what ambitious people within and outside of the Party will do to either maintain or gain power.

Will ordinary people risk their lives to keep the Party in power? Are Party members and military people unshakeably loyal to the Party? Or do they simply see it as a means of obtaining bribes and special favors?* If the Joe Average and the power players noted above are simply going to be spectators or perhaps even anti-Party agitators in the event of a revolt, then the Party's collapse is just a matter of time.

* This is key. If the Party is simply a source of bribes and special favors, some Party members will get more and some will get less. The ones who get less are the ones who would join a revolution. Think of the minor officials and minor gentry in Chinese history who became political entrepreneurs under their own banners - Liu Bang, Cao Cao, et al. The Party hopes that China has reached the end of history, with the Party at the head of a dynasty that will last until the end of time. But that's what every dynasty thinks. Until the illusion of permanence is shattered. And the end has always started with the loss of fear. Either of the regime or of death itself. What Chang has pointed out is that the Chinese people are losing their fear.

[BJungNan]

When weighing how the average Chinese citizen feels about a "new" revolution and student movements in China, you can not de-link the horror may families went through during the cultural revolution in China.

It is ingrained in their minds and is that by which they judge current events and movements. Just as the great depression shaped grandparents thinking here.

What you say about others going ahead with their "new" revolution plans may well be true. Perhaps we are talking to different subjects. But if we are talking Chinese reaction to such a movement, then these attitudes can not be ignored.

Question: Do those who want a new revolution know how to conduct themselves should they succeed. Or will they commit their own atrocities in the name of a different cause?