25 Years since the Tiananmen Massacre

[Beet]

I'm not going to link to news articles there-- there are a flurry of them to be sure. Nor are the consequences of this event particularly mysterious. A look at the raft elections that we have seen in recent months around the world will give you an idea. I seek only to mark this moment and, perhaps, add a few comments.

First of all, it is often said that if you look at the chaos that has followed other revolutions-- notably the collapse of the USSR in 1991, that Deng and the CCP was vindicated in their crackdown on the students. Of course, everyone has an opinion about what would or would not have happened had Zhao Ziyang been listened to. But the point is, this relies on a counter-factual that can never be proven. The situation of China in 1989 was very different from that of the USSR. China's economy was at a much lower level of development, China did not have as many separate republics as the USSR, and China was not a superpower. It had much less to lose, and more to gain. Subsequent history has borne that out.

Secondly, it is often said that China's economic growth from 1989 to today is a vindication of the crackdown. Again, the problem is that this relies on a counter-factual that can never be proven. Northeast Asian economies ex-North Korea have proven uniquely adept at economic development since 1945, and the period since 1990 has witnessed rapid growth in developing countries as a whole. For the period 1996 to 2010 for instance, India's total factor productivity growth was not significantly below China's. Of course, no one can prove that China's economic growth has come in spite of, rather than because of, the CCP's rule over China. But it is never even discussed as a possibility. If not the CCP, the credit goes to the Chinese people. You figure out which one is more "patriotic."

Third, the question today is not looking backward but looking forward. 1989 is significant only insofar as without June 4, we would not have the CCP in its present form, whereas with June 4, we do. So the significance of this date is only to reflect on what role the CCP has in China's development, and what unique policies and directions the CCP is undertaking. Is the CCP's monopoly on power a constructive force or an impediment to the future of China?

Fourth, Chen Yun. Upon thinking on the various spheres offered on my third comment, I was reminded of his noted economic analogy. He thought an economy was like a bird in a cage, where: "the bird represents the free market and the cage represents a central plan. Chen proposed that a balance should be found between 'setting the bird free' and choking the bird with a central plan that was too restrictive." By the 1980s, Chen Yun had turned against reform. Apparently the cage became too big for him. But Chen's analogy can be perhaps applied to the comprehensive development of a nation, in all of its aspects-- civil, cultural, and political. In this application the Chinese people dreaming the Chinese Dream are the bird, and the CCP is the cage. Within the cage, they are nominally free to fly to one end or the other. But what if the dream requires flying out of the cage?

[jaichind]

1) Back in 1989 when I was in high school I was opposed the student protests and applauded the CCP for the crackdown.  I saw the protests as an attempt by the working class to roll back the capitalist economic reforms.  For me it was critical that the economic and social counterrevolution that started in the 1980s continued and the protests were a threat to that.  After 1989 even though I was still a far right KMT supporter in the Greater Chinese context, I started to give critical support to the CCP.  I saw that the only way for the CCP to survive was to embrace the political logic of the KMT of the 1950s and 1960s.  And that is exactly what took place.  So for me personally it was not counter-factual as at the time I saw the smashing of the student-working class movement as critical to making sure socialism does not come back under the guise of social democracy.  And I also felt strongly at the time that for the PRC to achieve the economic gains we have achieved on the ROC the 1989 protests had to be beaten back.

2)  I am not sure why you picked TFP comparison between PRC and India for the 1996-2010 period.   Using the Conference board data, during that period it was 2.4% for PRC and 2.1% for India, a significant but not very large gap.  But the issue is from a TFP data point of view on the PRC, the PRC experienced a TFP surge 1991-1995 and loss some of that in 1996-1999 as the investment boom binge of the 1991-1995 period had to be digested.  So picking 1996-2010 seems to be data snooping.  A better comparison since we want to use the 1989 crackdown as a utilitarian debate on weather it as an economic positive or not, would be to use the 1990-2010 period.  Here the gap between PRC and India rises to 2.53% vs 1.57%.  In TFP terms this gap is fairly large given that most TFP growth in the world over a significant period of time tends to be from -0.5% to 1.5%.  Besides I would argue that the PRC economic gains since 1978 is not just TFP although that is a large part of it.  It is also part of the capitalist revival and profit motive that mobilized and created capital for productive economic activity.  TFP does not capture the surge in capital as TFP only measures output on top of labor and capital inputs. 

3) As for the future, as much I am for a 1950s 1960s KMT regime I realize that every formula will have to run its course.  I view the PRC as the same a ROC with a 25-30 year gap.  I am extremely disappointed with the political and economic development of ROC since the 1990s (mostly due to populist economic and political policies and the creation of the welfare state) so as the PRC moves forward in the next decade it can no longer use the ROC model as a guide other than to avoid what took place on ROC since the 1990s.

[MaxQue]

Why are we letting someone openly endorse a massacre here?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Why are we letting someone openly endorse a massacre here?

Why do you demand those who disagree with you be physically silenced?

[MaxQue]

Why are we letting someone openly endorse a massacre here?

Why do you demand those who disagree with you be physically silenced?

Because others were silenced for similar reasons.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Why are we letting someone openly endorse a massacre here?

Why do you demand those who disagree with you be physically silenced?

Because others were silenced for similar reasons.

So, what you are saying is "well, it's a shame Tiananmen Square happened, but since the Communist Party had them run down with tanks, we might as well do the same in solidarity with those who were killed." That makes no sense. If you want to support the protestors who were killed, you should start by supporting everyone's human right to free speech, no matter how disagreeable it is.

I might have misread your post once again (why do I always misread your posts in particular? It seems that always happen when we engage in a debate), but do you mean the protestors, or do you mean those who have, as you see it, "endorse massacres" in the past?

[MaxQue]

Why are we letting someone openly endorse a massacre here?

Why do you demand those who disagree with you be physically silenced?

Because others were silenced for similar reasons.

So, what you are saying is "well, it's a shame Tiananmen Square happened, but since the Communist Party had them run down with tanks, we might as well do the same in solidarity with those who were killed." That makes no sense. If you want to support the protestors who were killed, you should start by supporting everyone's human right to free speech, no matter how disagreeable it is.

I might have misread your post once again (why do I always misread your posts in particular? It seems that always happen when we engage in a debate), but do you mean the protestors, or do you mean those who have, as you see it, "endorse massacres" in the past?

I was referencing to posters here which were silenced (not always for "endorsing massacres", sometimes the offenses were milder), rather than the protestors in Tiananmen.

I suspect than the misreadings are due to my wierd written English. English is my second language, you see.

Through, you're right. Calling for censorship isn't appropriate in this specific context. They fought for free speech and democracy. However, I still maintain than jaichind's views are quite disgusting and I notice the irony of him using the free speech of the country where he lives to endorse deletion of the free speech in another country.

[Badger]

IMHO, in context of our commitment to freedom of speech, Jaichind has every right to publish his odious, pro-massacre, explicitly fascist and all-around reprehensible view.

Jaichind:

a) You're welcome for the support of your right to free speech.

b) I'll exercise my right to free speech by saying, at least as regards this topic, you really really suck.

[Citizen Hats]

And here I thought there were no actual Pinochetists...