thank you...
Posted on 12/17/2011 9:50:32 PM PST by bruinbirdman
You are equating apples with persimmons.
The China of today is not the Soviet Union of yesterday
The issues are far more complex
The Chinese government is no longer communist, except in name. A more appropriate name would be the Chinese Fascist Party. In stealing the nation's land from its original owners, the Party used to say that all land in China belonged to the people. In effect this meant that all land belonged to Party members, since those members decided how the land was used and for whose benefit. Still, for many Chinese, this wasn't unbearable, since they did get to use the land for planting crops, etc. However, the Party's role in selling the land off without sufficient compensation has finally broken the unspoken covenant between the Party and the people - the Party is now saying that that the land they stole from the ancestors of the villagers can no longer be used by those villagers. This has the makings of an agrarian revolt. Mao Zedong took advantage of similar sentiments to become the Emperor of China while nominally being head of the Chinese Communist Party. It should be interesting to see if any political adventurers with Mao's ability to lead a revolution arise, and whether there is enough discontent for a critical mass of followers to coalesce around these charismatic figures sufficient to launch a violent revolt. The Party will not give up power without a fight, so the question is whether any violent revolt that comes about resembles the failed Taiping Revolution of the 19th century, or the successful Xinhai Revolution of 1911.
The Chinese government is no longer communist, except in name. A more appropriate name would be the Chinese Fascist Party.
In stealing the nation's land from its original owners, the Party used to say that all land in China belonged to the people. In effect this meant that all land belonged to Party members, since those members decided how the land was used and for whose benefit. Still, for many Chinese, this wasn't unbearable, since they did get to use the land for planting crops, etc. However, the Party's role in selling the land off without sufficient compensation has finally broken the unspoken covenant between the Party and the people - the Party is now saying that that the land they stole from the ancestors of the villagers can no longer be used by those villagers. This has the makings of an agrarian revolt.
Mao Zedong took advantage of similar sentiments to become the Emperor of China while nominally being head of the Chinese Communist Party. It should be interesting to see if any political adventurers with Mao's ability to lead a revolution arise, and whether there is enough discontent for a critical mass of followers to coalesce around these charismatic figures sufficient to launch a violent revolt. The Party will not give up power without a fight, so the question is whether any violent revolt that comes about resembles the failed Taiping Revolution of the 19th century, or the successful Xinhai Revolution of 1911.
thank you...
Are there no Washingtons in China?
During the imperial era, the penalty for (unsuccessful) sedition used to be what might loosely be translated as the nine kinship exterminations, i.e. all your friends and relatives in every direction, typically resulting in the slaughter of thousands or even tens of thousands. Back then, the only reason to bet it all was to win it all (i.e. become emperor in place of the existing one). Today, the state's punishments are nowhere near as rigorous, so who knows?
Throughout Chinese history, there have been plenty of political adventurers with an eye for the main chance, but no one, to date, with the Cincinnatus-like character of Washington* combined with both political and military ability. Then again, the guy isn't simply a unique character in American history, he's one in world history.
* Mao had Washington's political and military ability, but was merely another Chinese emperor, an absolutist who killed more Chinese than the sum of the emperors who came before him.
It was back in the early 90s, right after Clinton gave them (as a freebee) the Klystron Switch so the Chinese could make working thermonuclear weapons (this was after Loral gave them the guidance systems for their ICBMs).
One of the military pages of the time carried the story, perhaps Stratfor, the Chinese, after testing their first couple of hydrogen bombs, went right for the neutron bomb. Clinton had just ordered US ICBMs to not be pre-targeted and the targeting cards removed.
Dr. Ed Tellar, urged Clinton not to make neutron bombs, and so it was.
Meanwhile, the Chinese pushed ahead with their program, testing the weapon on remote villages in the muslim regions - twice. Worked as advertised, making China the only known country with neutron bombs.
Don't be so sure of that, this is the first I've heard of it..........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.