Official China Discussion Thread

All things considered, it's hard to say. The KMT might be a very different (and worse) beast if it had come out on top all those years ago.

edited 7th Feb '18 12:39:04 AM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised

Yeah. I just enjoy thinking about the possibilities - with all the Communists did, I'm slowly leaning towards the position that China would have been better off if the KMT won the civil war.

It's alternate history, of course, so things can go on radically different paths...

Anyway, the SCMP is constantly yelling about the US slapping trade tariffs on China. I've seen little reports about it in foreign papers, though.

They would really have to work to do more damage, at least.

Actually that might be one difference: the KMT probably would have killed a lot of people too, but they might not have greenlit idiotic policies that resulted in widespread starvation.

Disgusted, but not surprised

I'll agree with you that the KMT still would kill a lot of people had they won. Chiang was not known for having an outstanding human rights record.

I'm sure that the KMT would make concessions to democratize China over time (albeit very slowly, Chiang would definitely keep the KMT in power until he died), but they'd definitely establish a state of terror in the background until Chiang's death. Said state of terror was pioneered in the early days of Chiang's takeover, then honed during the war as the MSBN struck at domestic enemies.

I'd suspect that most of the deaths would be from a KMT firing squad rather than starvation, in any case.

edited 7th Feb '18 1:23:24 AM by TheWildWestPyro

The weirdest thing I remember reading about modern China once is that some historians argue that it's closer to Chian Kai-shek's vision than it is to Mao's..

So economy-wise, it might have ended up at the same point, just without the completely hare-brained schemes Mao came up costing millions of people's lives.

Welcome to Estalia, gentlemen.

Honestly that doesn't surprise me in the slightest, Marxist-Leninist/Maoist goals are unattainable and fundamentally unrealistic. They couldn't get a Command Economy working with their tech level and I doubt even we could with ours.

edited 7th Feb '18 6:10:50 AM by Fourthspartan56

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

Honestly I'm pretty supportive of that view.

Chiang would be a bit more open to the West, though, and much less suspicious of America and other foreign nations that were friendly to China. We'd certainly see authoritarian measures, but I doubt censorship would be as fierce (banned books would still be a thing under him, though) as today.

I doubt we'd see any investment in Africa, though. Part of the reason why China has so much stuff in Africa harks back to when Maoist China appealed to poorer Communist nations that the Soviets looked down on.

edited 7th Feb '18 9:58:48 AM by TheWildWestPyro

Speaking of Africa, people said before that China's actions in Africa really reeks of neo-imperialism to the point that their movies now are propaganda on how they are defending Africans from western oppressors.

Not really surprising there.

China really picked up Imperial Japan's unique brand of "Pan-Asianism" rhetoric in recent years.

edited 7th Feb '18 10:38:29 AM by TheWildWestPyro

I've always found this complaint to be rather silly, nations will naturally try to improve their soft power over other nations through trade and investment. It's a normal thing and calling it imperialism neo or otherwise just devalues the word.

edited 7th Feb '18 10:48:45 AM by Fourthspartan56

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

https://imperialglobalexeter.com/2017/03/02/chinas-neo-imperialism-in-africa-perception-or-reality/

There has been good discussion about China's actions in Africa reeking of imperialism.

Because it often takes a nonvoluntary form - indebtment and intimidation are often part of this. China pays for questionable investments that leave countries in debt and the US threatened withdrawal of aid if the "wrong" parties got elected.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

The term I believe is "hegemon".

Disgusted, but not surprised

http://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/people-events/article/2127294/are-chinese-teen-idols-playing-role-making-propaganda

I know this is from last month, but it's interesting to show how the government is trying to sell propaganda by using youthful faces.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/asia-pacific/chinese-hip-hop-is-banned-as-it-emerges-from-the-underground-1.3374171

Also to show how they are the anti-fun police, they are banning Chinese Hip Hop.

I imagine it's probably less "anti-fun" and more banning things they see as a threat to their power and designs.

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

@ Fourthspartan 56

Yeah, that's the correct answer. I wonder if this will create an underground hip hop scene in China. The party might to stamp them out, but it's only going to create a secret movement.

I would be shocked if it didn't.

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

With these new laws, probably many already popular artists will have to go underground in order to stay on the music scene.

Anything remotely critical of authority (unless it's Western authority) would qualify. Like I said before, the CCP is really insecure.

Disgusted, but not surprised

That fits in "threat to their power and designs"

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

They aren't even real threats, or even intended to be threats. Criticism is not the same thing as a threat to anyone but really petty and insecure assholes. Which the CCP are.

Disgusted, but not surprised

Eh, maybe. I'm certainly not justify their action but a million little stings can add up.

Still it would probably be better if I had said "perceived threats to their power and designs".

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

I'm not actually disagreeing with anything you said. Just pointing out that what they see as threats to their power covers a very wide range of things. Even things that are by and large not particularly harmful or even intended to be harmful.

edited 7th Feb '18 8:06:24 PM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised

Fair enough.

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

Hell, they've come so far to the point where in that article about #Me Too! in China, they decry the concept of feminism - one of the few groundbreaking progressive doctrines that communist governments actually pushed - as being this scary Western conspiracy to incite rebellion among China's females.

Which really lights Aluminum Christmas Trees when one stops to remind themselves that the Communist Party itself is an import from the Soviet Union and the books of a German (Marx) and an Englishman (Engels).

edited 8th Feb '18 6:18:50 AM by FluffyMcChicken