China General Discussion

[politicus]

For discussion of politics and general social and economic issues regarding China.

[politicus]

Projecting China's collapse is fashionable among political journalists.
Obviously it's a good story. But how realistic is it?

The Coming China Collapse: Economic, Political Or Both?
http://seekingalpha.com/article/308830-the-coming-china-collapse-economic-political-or-both

[politicus]

Philippine, Chinese ships face off near Spratlys

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good luck to the Phillipines - standing up to the Chinese takes guts. Cooperation with Vietnam is definetly the way to go on this one.

[politicus]

A violent transfer of power might be preferable, if it gets rid if the CCP

Not if it brings back the 1910s, 20s, and 30s. Or the 60s.

Thats not necessarily the most likely scenario(s) and an ever stronger and richer China under authoritarian leadership is not an attractive development.
Communist one-party states gone capitalist seems much less likely to develop into democracies than right wing dictatorships, so violence of some kind might be the only way to topple the regime.

[politicus]

Chinese civil wars generally cost tens, hundreds of millions of lives.  It's easy for us sitting in comfy chairs by the glowing lights of our computer screens to wish for the overthrow of a regime, especially when we don't have to suffer the costs.  Sometimes the satisfaction of fulfilling our own political ideals comes at too great a cost for others.  Just a thought.

1. A civil war is not the only way to change regimes violently.
2. History doesn't necessarily repeat itself. The nightmare scenario of a return to 1920s warlord driven anarchy is not that realistic. It happened in a feudal China with much weaker institutions and a lower technological level.

My point was that the (now crony-capitalist) former communist one party states in Asia seems almost impossible to democratize, whereas right wing dictatorships in both Europe, South America and Asia have reformed when their economies developed to a certain level and the popular pressure from a larger and stronger middle class became to great. The crony-capitalist one party state seems to be the most tenacious kind of dictatorship, so the party itself is the most important obstacle to overcome.
A military dictatorship might actually be a necessary transitional stage since it would break the party's control over society. I see no real progress towards democracy as long as the party remain in control.

[politicus]

I find it fascinating, the discourse over the one child policy is very, very different in China vs. the West. In the West, it is accepted that demographics is destiny, and that China's low birth rate means its future doom as a power. Economist even went so far as to project a date when the Chinese nation will no longer exist due to no Chinese being born. Among Chinese, the view is totally different. It is accepted that China has too many people, and China's problems stem from being a poor country due to its large population. Under this view, China might gradually loosen the one child policy after GDP per capita reaches $10,000 or more, however it will not until then. The focus is more on quality of life rather than number of people. That said, I am opposed to the one child policy myself, but I do find it interesting how differently it is framed.

That may be the case among rightwingers and economists in the Anglophone world, but generally the belief that most of the worlds current problems stems from the Earth being overpopulated is quite widespread in the West. Its dominant in continental Europe.
Eastern China is a terribly crowded place and the Han Chinese colonization of the West is quite problematic and is no viable solution to the problem. Internal conflicts could easily undermine Chinas stability and hence its development and ability to influence other countries, so I think the Chinese got their priorities right.

The UN is very worried that the worlds population will not stabilize until 2100 (unlike 2050 which they previously estimated) and probably will stabilize at a higher level than he 10-10,5 billion which used to be their estimate.

[politicus]

Fair point, but he seemed to mix the relative power argument and the idea of general benefits of a large population.

But I dont think the relative power argument is right either. In Chinas case the country already has an extremely large population and a huge strain on resources and infrastrcture so their entire society would function better if their population was smaller. If they dont stop population growth social conflicts over resources will ruin their internal stability and therefore also theirpolitical and economic potential on the world stage.
The US has managed to be dominant in most fields with "only" 300+ million inhabitants. Once you get above a certain share of the worlds population its quality not quantity that matters.

as a radical right KMT supporter.

Just what this thread needs...

[politicus]

The one child policy may be changed to a two child policy due to "demographic time bomb".  

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/23/china-may-adopt-two-child-policy-this-year-as-demographic-timebomb-looms

"Experts warn that China’s 1.3 billion-strong population is ageing rapidly, while the labour pool is shrinking. The country will have nearly 440 million over-60s by 2050, according to UN estimates, placing a massive strain on government resources.

Meanwhile, the working-age population – those aged between 15 and 59 – fell by 3.71 million last year, a trend that is expected to continue"