Yesterday I reviewed Bianco's book on the Chinese revolution, a "must read" and I wanted to point out another side issue in his book. Bianco's notes the standard marxist view of the dictatorship of the proletariat, that the city worker is the future. Bianco draws come comparisons and contrasts between Mao and Trotsky. Someday someone should write a comparison of Mao vs Trotsky. It would be a useful study of social status comparable but culturally diverse minds.
Since Mao was obliged to mime good communist ideology, Page 78 Mao was formulating policies for a proletariat that did not exist... like is USA where we write minimum age laws for people who will never work again. At the same time, Mao was quietly breaking the communist dogmatic rules by forming policies with the power that certainly did exist, the peasant (small farmers.) While Mao was working with the Chinese people, Chiang kai shek was working with the Americans.
Chiang was a fascist who pursued policies that were anti free-market, like minimum wage laws and unemployment insurance. The unions in China were sham unions, as they are now in USA today. So both sides were focused on labor, all outsiders considered labor the key, and only Mao (secretly) was working on what mattered. All the best minds and most powerful elements were barking up the wrong tree.
What drove the Chinese revolution was rage at foreign domination of China. This was not only bad for China, it was bad for mankind which was denied the good of Chinese creativity for the centuries of foreign hegemony. One China, strong enough to "stand up" was the goal of all parties. The (more or less) Communists won the right to dictate terms to the world and to the Chinese.
We might step back a second, now that the Chinese have found their independence, and look at "one China, two systems." Is that not a concept for foreign consumption? Does it not play on the racist idea that all Chinese are alike? What if I were to say Europe has a "one country, 27 systems" policy. Well, you might begin to say Europeans are too diverse to make that work, but then, is that not exactly what is being fomented with the Eurozone efforts (which just a decade old is falling apart?)
The strength of the Chinese Imperial system was its weakness. Foreign powers could take over the head and the country would follow. Switzerland remains free because it has no standing military and to take over the government would get you no control over the Swiss people.
USA was founded on a regime of "one country, 13 systems." It is now and empire, and failing. Perhaps the Chinese Communists, who call the shots in China, could now peacefully expand this "one country, two systems" to whatever number best frees up Chinese creativity to the betterment of mankind.
I'd like to encourage that.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
Since Mao was obliged to mime good communist ideology, Page 78 Mao was formulating policies for a proletariat that did not exist... like is USA where we write minimum age laws for people who will never work again. At the same time, Mao was quietly breaking the communist dogmatic rules by forming policies with the power that certainly did exist, the peasant (small farmers.) While Mao was working with the Chinese people, Chiang kai shek was working with the Americans.
Chiang was a fascist who pursued policies that were anti free-market, like minimum wage laws and unemployment insurance. The unions in China were sham unions, as they are now in USA today. So both sides were focused on labor, all outsiders considered labor the key, and only Mao (secretly) was working on what mattered. All the best minds and most powerful elements were barking up the wrong tree.
On page 84 of his book Bianco notes that the nationalists, under Chiang Kai Shek, were allies of the USA and the USSR, which is no surprise since USA and USSR were allies during WWII. USA & USSR saw little hope for the Communists, but Chiang new better, and turned on the ChiComs. The story of how this betrayal in some ways precipitated the ChiCom victory is a fascinating study in how the unexpected plays out in big movements. And here again, as so often in all history, but in particular Chinese history, you have the Chinese people escaping to anarchy to escape the chaos of government.
The Communist government was thin on the ground and terribly inexperienced. This was highly preferable to the vast majority of the Chinese who found the nationalists modern efficiency too terrible to endure. Chiang kai Shek beat a retreat to Taiwan, where many natives soon came to regret the defeat of the Japanese.
As these things go, once violence is introduced as the change agent, the results are miserable all around. Scores get settled, good and final. Although China officially has a "one country, two systems policy" it really might be by now, "one country, three systems."
What drove the Chinese revolution was rage at foreign domination of China. This was not only bad for China, it was bad for mankind which was denied the good of Chinese creativity for the centuries of foreign hegemony. One China, strong enough to "stand up" was the goal of all parties. The (more or less) Communists won the right to dictate terms to the world and to the Chinese.
We might step back a second, now that the Chinese have found their independence, and look at "one China, two systems." Is that not a concept for foreign consumption? Does it not play on the racist idea that all Chinese are alike? What if I were to say Europe has a "one country, 27 systems" policy. Well, you might begin to say Europeans are too diverse to make that work, but then, is that not exactly what is being fomented with the Eurozone efforts (which just a decade old is falling apart?)
The strength of the Chinese Imperial system was its weakness. Foreign powers could take over the head and the country would follow. Switzerland remains free because it has no standing military and to take over the government would get you no control over the Swiss people.
USA was founded on a regime of "one country, 13 systems." It is now and empire, and failing. Perhaps the Chinese Communists, who call the shots in China, could now peacefully expand this "one country, two systems" to whatever number best frees up Chinese creativity to the betterment of mankind.
I'd like to encourage that.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
1 comments:
Here is a book on communist China's economy that you might find interesting:
"Red Capitalism" by Carl Walter and Fraser Howie.
http://www.amazon.com/Red-Capitalism-Financial-Foundation-Extraordinary/dp/1118255100
The WSJ review:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576190864046071514.html
Post a Comment