h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Future of the People's Republic - A896051
Author: Researcher 211446 - U211446

Looking forward to some useful criticism. This is not an academic paper but a candid narration of projections based on personal observation.

It reads much like an academic paper. In fact it reads very much like some of the tirades that Kim Ill Sung used to publish in the Western press.

I don’t think it is Edited Guide material. It falls down on a number of guidelines, not least that it has to be balanced. This could serve well be as a Press Release for the Chinese Communist Party.

As it is an opinion piece it would be more suited in the Alternative Writing Workshop.

Stuart

...or you could make do with some useless criticism, like that in the previous post.

OK, so it reads like an academic paper, but it's a highly readable one. Secondly, I don't read any propaganda in this piece, just an account of how the Party has repeatedly repackaged itself as times have changed. Thirdly, coming from Singapore, I hardly think you are the kind who would be in the business of publishing Communist 'tirades'. Fourthly, it strikes *me* anyway as being a dispassionate and balanced piece: you don't indulge in any sloganeering or assumptions about the value of the regime in question, although admittedly you do say it based upon personal opinion.

I think it's a good starting point for a Speaker's Corner article, rather than an EG artcile, as it's very speculative and from your own perspective. Do nevertheless feel free to ignore hysterical responses when posting to this forum.

Regards
FM

Having read your page FM I think you and I are going to fundamentally disagree on a lot of things, especially when it comes to the monarchy. See A806672

Stuart

I'm sure lots of people disagree with me, and I'm sure lots of people agree with me. Ces't la vie

Heyyyyyy! Guyyyyyyys! Chilllllll!

I actually posted here earlier, except it got lost in the... er... post.

back soon

I'm perfectly chilled out. I took exception to the unwarranted roasting that Stuart gave this newbie's article. It seemed rather unfair, I thought.

ok, cool.

I have a feeling that 'nothing' in particular may have frayed Stuart's patience a little recently, , eh Stuart?

Anyway, what i said earlier went something like this:

Hi Hari,

This is nicely written and contains lots of great info,

Are you clear on what peer review is all about? Are you familiar with the Writing-Guidelines?

If not, Don't Panic!

I think you could do various things with this entry, including keeping it just as it is and regarding it to be a valuable addition to the 'unedited' guide. People will get this as a result from the h2g2 search, and should find it very interesting/useful if they are after info on China and the political development there over recent decades.

As has been said, it would need to be adapted (though as has also been said, not all that much - sometimes the right title is the most important change) to fit the guidelines if you want it to go through editing and feature on the front page as one of the day's new edited guide entries.

'What's the biggy?' you may be asking... Well, it is all to do with contributing to DNA's project of creating an Earth edition of his fictional guide to the galaxy.

Any clearer?

If you *do* decided to adapt this to fit the EG guidelines, might i suggest you do so in a new entry, whilst keeping this 'finished but not EG' version to compare and contrast with the 'official, EG' finished entry. It can be an interesting experiment, but also, you might regret losing some of the personal touches in this one.

Having said all that, it strikes me that it won't need *that* much editing to bring it into line...

anyway, good luck with it, whatever you decide,
and always remember that this forum is all about getting feedback from other writers. You can afford to take anyone's comments (yep, mine too, ) with as large a pinch of salt as you like,

You'll tend to find the reviewers here (including Stuart) are a very positive crowd who only want the best for the entries under review. We may not always all agree, but the intention is always there, .

cya
spiff

I think this is an interesting read, but probably more suitable for either Speaker's Corner or The Post. The British magazine "Private Eye" has a column called "Letter from...." in which a journalist from a country that's not in the news much writes about recent events in his / her country. These pieces are very opinionated, and are often very controversial, but always required reading! Perhaps The Post could have a similar column.....

I have one major worry about this piece, and that's this bit:

"As the Chinese state successfully negotiated itself through problems of unleashing new forces independent of the state (notably the 1989 Tiananmen incident) and arrived at the global stage as a major economic player..."

Okay, I'm not an expert on China past or present, but I don't think anyone would describe Tiananmen as a success in any way other than it didn't lead to a revolution or change of administration. Quite apart from the terrible loss of life, it did huge damage to the way that China was seen in the west, and is still causing damage even now.

I'd be interested to hear your views on Hong Kong and Taiwan. Did the return of Hong Kong have any affect on Chinese politics in terms of pushing it towards a more capitalist approach? What will the change in direction mean for Chinese attitudes towards Taiwan?

Do you think that economic change can be achieved without political change? Do you thing the new middle classes will really be satisfied with capitalist inequalities without a greater say in the way that the country is run - even if they are (to some extent) included in the Communist Party? What about exposure to the west - will that not eventually lead to a desire for democracy? What do you think?

Hi Spiff,

There is nothing that frayes my patience, with the possible exception of nothing.

Hows that for confusion?

Stuart

Interesting questions you pose Otto. However, I have a sneaky suspicion that you are not going to get an answer, at least not from this quarter. Time will tell.

Stuart

Its funny that this write-up can be mistaken for anything said in favour of the CCP. This can mean two things. First, intention and expression differ greatly. Second, as a critic, skepticisim overtook sensitivity. I am open to either possibility. Frankly, I wrote this piece after the 16th NPC when in reaction to all the attention China was getting in foreign press. The main point that I wishes to drive home was that China is not Socialist. Distribution of wealth is not according to labour. Deng said long back that we are going to allow a portion of the people to get rich firt. "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics can mean anything." We hear about concepts like this all the time. It started off with Mao Zedong calling the Chinese state a People's Democratic Dictatorship. In his connotation democracy was for the people and dictatorship for the enemies. As for how decides on the line between people and enemy, no prizes for guessing.

Having said that, another point that I wanted to highlight was that given the social conditions, that I find China ideal for capitalist development (a comparison with say, India should be responsible, where social factors like relegion, ethics etc are perceived to have a dampening role upon the economy)and coupled with a totalitarian Party/State and a strong military, it feels more meaningful to talk about Capitalism with Chinese Characterstics and the implications it could hold for the world.

Thank you so much for those interesting questions. My real intention behind putting this article up for review was to get a feedback of the sort you have given me.

The Tiananmen square was by no mean a positive event. Nor did it make things easy for the CCP domestically or internationally. We could go into a lengthy discussion as to the event and what its effects where on China, but that was not my focus in the write-up. What I meant by "successfully negotiated" was that despite the Tiananmen incident and other human rights violations that we keep hearing about, we don't see China getting isolated in the world. Instead, the international community (including the US)is increasing business ties with China. Yes, the usual reference to Amnesty International's Reports comes up every now and then, but that's just lip courtisy. What I meant to stress in that sentence was the latter part "and successfully arrived at the world stage as a major economic player." China is a market everyone wants a share of. Investments to the tune of 40 bn USD are flowing to China every year. The best part, the CCP is still there!!!

Further development of the economy naturally means a reduction in the role of the state. To reconcile an expanding market economy with a totalitarian state can be termed as one of the greatest challenges China faces. The best projection in this regard comes from Gordon White's "Riding the tiger". He is of the opinion that the best bet for China is to go the neo-authoritarian way as the asian dragons. That basically means gradual reform in politics and rapid economic growth. Another thing he says is interesting, "Communism is in its deathbed." While I personally am not of a leftist persuasion, it surprises me how two different ideologies and discourses (of pre and post 1976) be referred to by the same name - The Chinese Communist Party. This is probably hermeneutics with "Chinese charactersitics."

Thanks spiff, took note of your comments, I don't know how things work around here. Just wrote something and wanted to share it with people. I am quite happy with the response I got.

Vous avez raison monsieur, la vie est comme ca!! Merci pour votre revue!!

Why, tnank you. Did you read my polemic against the monarchy then?

One thing your article doesn't mention is Mao's ever growing popularity with the Chinese poor. His personality cult grows in a way never seen before in a Communist figure (Lenin's cult was 'groomed' by Stalin and was a state tool; Guevara's evolved naturally - but Che was not tested in power to the extent that Mao's was; Tito's evolved naturally but gradually disolved under state manipulation). The desire to return to a Maoist model amongst the poor is matched only by the enthusiasm for consumerism amongst the uppermidlle classes.

China is no longer a Communist state. Deng largely saw to that in his deals with Nixon. What's more, the price China had to pay for the intolerance at Tianamen was becoming the global sweatshop of the multinationals - another factor overlooked in your article.

Maybe the CCP are very wise Communists indeed, maybe they are trying to precipitate a new revolution by increasing exploitation and social division. Maybe they're just polititians.

Thank you so much for your comments. This is in fact the very point that my article makes. I admit that my focus is a bit different though. You have rightly pointed out that China is no longer a Communist state and that a section (increasingly large) of the Chinese population is getting increasingly disillusioned with the state of affairs. While you are right in pointing out that there is a desire among sections to see a revival of the pre-Deng order, the psychological and sociological factors behind this reaction must not be overlooked. In simple terms, the poor and deprived always look for change. A system that does not bring about amelioration in their lives is thus regarded as callous and allegience to alternative systems rises.

If the Chinese people supported the Communist take over in 1949, it was not because everyone fully understood Marxism or Communism, but instead because the Communists promised a change from the existing state of affairs then. Redistribution of land during the first three years of the Communist Regime proved to be yet another incentive to people to beleive in the system. What happened thereafter is however different. Forced collectivisation stunted active participation and lead to disasters as in the Great Leap Forward.

In Chinese society today, we have a widening gap between the rich and the poor and a sizable section of the population looks back nostalgically to the era of egalitarianism under Mao. But it is equally true that unlike earlier there has emerged a sizable middle class that as you rightly say is blissfully enjoying the consumerist boom. When the Party starts deriving its support base from the middle class instead of the proletariat and when it is backed up by a strong military force, the chances of seeing an organized revolution by the deprived seem little. Unless the deprived/marginalised become overwhelming in numbers, it would be difficult for them to pose an effective challenge to the system. This is what I meant when I said "implication of Capitalism with Chinese characteristics." And the implications of the mammoth in making go wide and far beyond Chinese borders. But that is a separate issue and would have to be dealt with elsewhere.

Right - I'll have a look at this straight after kung fu.

'Ere, Spiff, you couldn't, like, nudge me if you see anything of an oriental nature hanging around?

Jack

Actually, though this is all very informative, I don't really know enough about the country I'm living in to comment

Most of it seems to ring true though...

Jack