|
Post by guyverman1990 on Jan 30, 2016 4:54:30 GMT
Good day people, I hope you are enjoying your weekends so far.
Today, I would like bring one particular country as a subject, particularly what the future holds for it. China as we know it is a civilization with an vast, extensive and enduring history that continues to fascinate and inspire many until this day. Many times throughout its history, the nation itself famously went through many long and brutal periods of turmoil and disunity, notably the Warring States (475-221 BC) Three Kingdoms (220-280 BC) and maybe one could even consider the time-frame that included the decline of the Qing Dynasty until the Communist party's rise to power such a period. Could the cycle continue with another such period in the foreseeable future? If so, what could be the conditions be that trigger such a period? How long could it last and what authority could seize power in whatever power vacuum it creates?
Speculate at will.
|
|
|
Post by Kubo Caskett on Jan 31, 2016 2:38:30 GMT
I think China would still be becoming the number 2 superpower in the world and competing with the US (in a "subtle" way). However, its pseudo-communist authoritarian regime might start to be challenged more and more by dissents in the decades to come the more the regime liberalizes (similar to the USSR's). That and at least they might start exporting their pop culture overseas to compete with Japanese, Korean, and Western ones, cuz well China's gotta have soft power somehow (though I really like to see what kinds of games come out of the region).
|
|
|
Post by guyverman1990 on Jan 31, 2016 3:20:34 GMT
I think China would still be becoming the number 2 superpower in the world and competing with the US (in a "subtle" way). However, its pseudo-communist authoritarian regime might start to be challenged more and more by dissents in the decades to come the more the regime liberalizes (similar to the USSR's). That and at least they might start exporting their pop culture overseas to compete with Japanese, Korean, and Western ones, cuz well China's gotta have soft power somehow (though I really like to see what kinds of games come out of the region). Look out how well last time dissidents facing them turned out.
|
|
|
Post by Epic History on Jan 31, 2016 4:56:47 GMT
The Business Insider has a really good article on why Communist China is already at its peak, and the Wall Street Journal argues that the defects of the regime underlined in the previous link (Combined with others) spell the end of the current regime.
|
|
Mathuen
Junior Member
马萨诸塞州, 中华人民共和国 (Trapped Yo)
Posts: 70
|
Post by Mathuen on Feb 1, 2016 8:22:43 GMT
Honestly? Completely honestly with no vague dodging shit? The period of disunity is over for China for a while. The closest it came was likely during the mid 90s when the provinces were their most dismissive of the central government post '49 and the Army Cliques still had significant power, though admittedly the last of the real army cliques fell by '94 anyways. The PRC will fall eventually. Probably 200 or so years from now.
|
|
|
Post by MinnesotaNationalist on Feb 1, 2016 8:29:45 GMT
Mathuen is probably right. The age of divided China is probably over (unless you count Taiwan), at least for a long time now. The borders will shift and non-Chinese nationalities will likely leave (Tibetans, Uyghurs, Mongols, arguably Manchurians), but I think the age of Warring States is over
|
|
Mathuen
Junior Member
马萨诸塞州, 中华人民共和国 (Trapped Yo)
Posts: 70
|
Post by Mathuen on Feb 1, 2016 8:30:44 GMT
As for potential Intra-China conflicts in the future though, as the PLA and the MSS grow in their scope, funding, influence in the government, and overseas commitments it is likely that their goals will conflict eventually. I would not be surprised if the MSS and PLA actually go against each other in places like Sub-Saharan Africa or Central Asia in a generation or so. Of course the State will put up a facade and try clamping down on either the conflict or side with one against the other and cripple one at the behest of whichever group has the ear of the Politburo at the time.
Though a Clancy-Esque Shadow War isn't exactly a period of disunity.
|
|
Mathuen
Junior Member
马萨诸塞州, 中华人民共和国 (Trapped Yo)
Posts: 70
|
Post by Mathuen on Feb 1, 2016 8:43:59 GMT
Mathuen is probably right. The age of divided China is probably over (unless you count Taiwan), at least for a long time now. The borders will shift and non-Chinese nationalities will likely leave (Tibetans, Uyghurs, Mongols, arguably Manchurians), but I think the age of Warring States is over As a note, the Manchurians and Mongolians have already been Hui-ized, which is to say that they basically have thrown their lot in with the Han hard and have no intent to stray. The Manchurians (Now just lumped in with the rest of the Dongbeiren at this point) don't even really exist as a separate ethnicity anymore, and as Dongbei continues to fall behind the rest of the country economically many will just move to the Tier 1 Cities (or maybe Tier 2 depending) and so what remains of them will just intermarry out of existence. The Mongolian-Chinese associate Mongolian Nationalism with fascism, not with ill reason given that basically all Pan-Mongolian agitators near the border ARE fascists. They are also Singing Red as it were and are becoming so thoroughly Hanized that your average Southern Hakka probably "looks" more Mongolian at this point. As for Tibet, neither the government in exile nor the nationalists in China actually want independence, but more devolution. This may or may not happen, as Tibet is a weird place. The Xi Administration, being more on centralization, might not budge, but the next Administration might. It won't be "ethnically cleansed" as some people claim is happening given that Han have no real desire to move there en masse, so Tibet will likely remain 95% Tibetan for the foreseeable future. At the same time the height of the Free Tibet movement in China came and went, and both the newer crop of Tibetans who only know Chinese rule and Chinese historiography which paints (semi-correctly) the previous Lamadom as a corrupt feudal slaver state, and the current Tibetan Government, prefer all the subsidies and stuff that Beijing brings. The Uyghurs though... the Uyghurs... that is not a happy place. Honestly, they might actually get silently cleansed by the state or in some other way be broken. We may see an Uyghur exodus out of China into Central Asia, though it is not likely that any of the Governments there will be kind to them, especially since the State works hard to associate Uyghur Nationalism with Terrorism, to limited but improving effect. Hope my word barf didn't come off as rude, I just felt that the state of those peoples needed to be expanded upon.
|
|
|
Post by MinnesotaNationalist on Feb 1, 2016 9:03:35 GMT
Mathuen is probably right. The age of divided China is probably over (unless you count Taiwan), at least for a long time now. The borders will shift and non-Chinese nationalities will likely leave (Tibetans, Uyghurs, Mongols, arguably Manchurians), but I think the age of Warring States is over As a note, the Manchurians and Mongolians have already been Hui-ized, which is to say that they basically have thrown their lot in with the Han hard and have no intent to stray. The Manchurians (Now just lumped in with the rest of the Dongbeiren at this point) don't even really exist as a separate ethnicity anymore, and as Dongbei continues to fall behind the rest of the country economically many will just move to the Tier 1 Cities (or maybe Tier 2 depending) and so what remains of them will just intermarry out of existence. The Mongolian-Chinese associate Mongolian Nationalism with fascism, not with ill reason given that basically all Pan-Mongolian agitators near the border ARE fascists. They are also Singing Red as it were and are becoming so thoroughly Hanized that your average Southern Hakka probably "looks" more Mongolian at this point. As for Tibet, neither the government in exile nor the nationalists in China actually want independence, but more devolution. This may or may not happen, as Tibet is a weird place. The Xi Administration, being more on centralization, might not budge, but the next Administration might. It won't be "ethnically cleansed" as some people claim is happening given that Han have no real desire to move there en masse, so Tibet will likely remain 95% Tibetan for the foreseeable future. At the same time the height of the Free Tibet movement in China came and went, and both the newer crop of Tibetans who only know Chinese rule and Chinese historiography which paints (semi-correctly) the previous Lamadom as a corrupt feudal slaver state, and the current Tibetan Government, prefer all the subsidies and stuff that Beijing brings. The Uyghurs though... the Uyghurs... that is not a happy place. Honestly, they might actually get silently cleansed by the state or in some other way be broken. We may see an Uyghur exodus out of China into Central Asia, though it is not likely that any of the Governments there will be kind to them, especially since the State works hard to associate Uyghur Nationalism with Terrorism, to limited but improving effect. Hope my word barf didn't come off as rude, I just felt that the state of those peoples needed to be expanded upon. Well, I didn't necessarily mean in the next 10 years. Maybe in another 50 the Tibetan Independence movement could rise again, but given the information you gave me, it'll be unlikely/minimal, as well as the information on the Manchus, I'm guessing an independent Manchuria won't be seen for a long while (sadface), nor Mongolia gaining Inner Mongolia.
|
|
Mathuen
Junior Member
马萨诸塞州, 中华人民共和国 (Trapped Yo)
Posts: 70
|
Post by Mathuen on May 7, 2016 19:10:48 GMT
Suddenly I return to the thread 3 months later! Mainly because I was inspired by a post I came across yesterday*. Sure, the period of disunity is over and things are good and all, the economy is still growing quite fine, the Party is still hiring, the buildings and power plants keep going up and all of that, but there is also a rising current of self hatred, disappointment, and deconstruction going on in Chinese society nowadays. There's a degree of bitterness that Chinese ambitions are being held back by both the state and society and that it is weighing on everyone and making society lesser. There's a growing hatred of the business as usual steady state path that the PRC is going through, and it is feeding into a lot of the growing nationalist, ideological, and "expansionist" tumult under the surface of the Party. It's honestly only a matter of time before something snaps, and although I don't think it will mean the end of the PRC, or the Party, or any of that, it will likely spell the beginning of a more ideological and less "pragmatic" China to come. *Here y'all go. There's an English text accompanying it too for y'all: mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=NTcxNjk5MDE1&mid=2650816193&idx=2&sn=f9fe46a124ec46df98dd98235c4e690e
|
|
|
Post by Gog3451 on May 12, 2016 16:08:03 GMT
The PRC will probobly eventually fall, but not into warring states or a magical direct democracy but an more likely a decentralized semi-oligarchical republic with elections. Essentially, it will probobly reform,
|
|
ruth
New Member
pining for the fjords
Posts: 35
|
Post by ruth on May 12, 2016 17:30:37 GMT
In all honesty, I've never understood the FH meme of inevitable democratic China or its Dark Twin, messy balkanization. As Mathuen's pointed out above, vigorous policies of assimilation mean that (south) Mongolian and Manchurian nationalism are in the dustbin of history, and the internal goals of Tibet are no longer really for independence. The only other major Chinese "borderland" of the Uyghurs has undergone aggressive assimilation and Han Chinese have been imported in large numbers, to the point where there are almost as many Han as Uyghurs. With Xi slated for another 7 years at the top spot, I don't really see that policy abating. Turmoil is one thing—and if policies like these continue, it's sure to have its fair share of it. But I have to agree that I don't see much disunity, or even a particularly drastic transformative shift in the Chinese government in the near- to medium-term. That the PRC might discard the pretence of communism—more of a branding tool, at this point, than a truly accurate descriptor of Chinese policy—doesn't necessitate an eager leap into the arms of Western democracy, either.
|
|
|
Post by Gog3451 on May 12, 2016 17:39:06 GMT
In all honesty, I've never understood the FH meme of inevitable democratic China or its Dark Twin, messy balkanization. As Mathuen's pointed out above, vigorous policies of assimilation mean that (south) Mongolian and Manchurian nationalism are in the dustbin of history, and the internal goals of Tibet are no longer really for independence. The only other major Chinese "borderland" of the Uyghurs has undergone aggressive assimilation and Han Chinese have been imported in large numbers, to the point where there are almost as many Han as Uyghurs. With Xi slated for another 7 years at the top spot, I don't really see that policy abating. Turmoil is one thing—and if policies like these continue, it's sure to have its fair share of it. But I have to agree that I don't see much disunity, or even a particularly drastic transformative shift in the Chinese government in the near- to medium-term. That the PRC might discard the pretence of communism—more of a branding tool, at this point, than a truly accurate descriptor of Chinese policy—doesn't necessitate an eager leap into the arms of Western democracy, either. Agreed, I don't think that the PRC will embrace western democracy and instutions for a long time. However I think that the more contact China has with teh west, there is going to be impetus for political reform and the easing of the security state. Under Xi no, he wants to consolidate power it seems, but the next ruler will likely have to contend with increased pressure within the elites, espcially the ones who do business in the west who want to "ease up" so to speak. Likely also removing communism.
|
|
|
Post by punkrockbowler805 on May 14, 2016 7:19:52 GMT
They stay one of the biggest world powers. Communism stays but keeps getting tweaked for economic efficiency. Tibetan separatism grinds down after the Dalai lama passes and gets replaced with a puppet. They beat the US to mars and a space race combined with south China sea island disputes and the inevitable failure of north Korea lead to a cold war with America kind of.
|
|
Mathuen
Junior Member
马萨诸塞州, 中华人民共和国 (Trapped Yo)
Posts: 70
|
Post by Mathuen on May 14, 2016 22:28:50 GMT
In all honesty, I've never understood the FH meme of inevitable democratic China or its Dark Twin, messy balkanization. As Mathuen's pointed out above, vigorous policies of assimilation mean that (south) Mongolian and Manchurian nationalism are in the dustbin of history, and the internal goals of Tibet are no longer really for independence. The only other major Chinese "borderland" of the Uyghurs has undergone aggressive assimilation and Han Chinese have been imported in large numbers, to the point where there are almost as many Han as Uyghurs. With Xi slated for another 7 years at the top spot, I don't really see that policy abating. Turmoil is one thing—and if policies like these continue, it's sure to have its fair share of it. But I have to agree that I don't see much disunity, or even a particularly drastic transformative shift in the Chinese government in the near- to medium-term. That the PRC might discard the pretence of communism—more of a branding tool, at this point, than a truly accurate descriptor of Chinese policy—doesn't necessitate an eager leap into the arms of Western democracy, either. Personally I think it comes from a desire to see the Western Era continue as long as possible or at the very least to not have the idea of Western dominance be challenged. The way to do that is to either coopt China into a Western ideal of modernism or smash it into a million pieces and make subservient puppets out of its remains. As for Xi, I'm getting the feeling he won't step down once his 10 years have gone by. Now to be sure nobody knows what goes on in Xi's head except for Xi and maybe his wife and daughter, the man is an enigma wrapped in a riddle, but given the nationalist and restorationist slant of all his writings and his increasingly all-present self-promotion he doesn't seem like the kind of guy who will simply bow to Party and Cadre whims and leave, especially not after his latest move to centralize the People's Liberation Army under himself as Commander and Chief.
|
|
|
Post by Gog3451 on May 15, 2016 1:57:17 GMT
In all honesty, I've never understood the FH meme of inevitable democratic China or its Dark Twin, messy balkanization. As Mathuen's pointed out above, vigorous policies of assimilation mean that (south) Mongolian and Manchurian nationalism are in the dustbin of history, and the internal goals of Tibet are no longer really for independence. The only other major Chinese "borderland" of the Uyghurs has undergone aggressive assimilation and Han Chinese have been imported in large numbers, to the point where there are almost as many Han as Uyghurs. With Xi slated for another 7 years at the top spot, I don't really see that policy abating. Turmoil is one thing—and if policies like these continue, it's sure to have its fair share of it. But I have to agree that I don't see much disunity, or even a particularly drastic transformative shift in the Chinese government in the near- to medium-term. That the PRC might discard the pretence of communism—more of a branding tool, at this point, than a truly accurate descriptor of Chinese policy—doesn't necessitate an eager leap into the arms of Western democracy, either. Personally I think it comes from a desire to see the Western Era continue as long as possible or at the very least to not have the idea of Western dominance be challenged. The way to do that is to either coopt China into a Western ideal of modernism or smash it into a million pieces and make subservient puppets out of its remains. As for Xi, I'm getting the feeling he won't step down once his 10 years have gone by. Now to be sure nobody knows what goes on in Xi's head except for Xi and maybe his wife and daughter, the man is an enigma wrapped in a riddle, but given the nationalist and restorationist slant of all his writings and his increasingly all-present self-promotion he doesn't seem like the kind of guy who will simply bow to Party and Cadre whims and leave, especially not after his latest move to centralize the People's Liberation Army under himself as Commander and Chief. I'm not sure if he has the support to pull off what would be a self coup. But I suppose we will see.
|
|
ruth
New Member
pining for the fjords
Posts: 35
|
Post by ruth on May 15, 2016 14:27:06 GMT
In all honesty, I've never understood the FH meme of inevitable democratic China or its Dark Twin, messy balkanization. As Mathuen's pointed out above, vigorous policies of assimilation mean that (south) Mongolian and Manchurian nationalism are in the dustbin of history, and the internal goals of Tibet are no longer really for independence. The only other major Chinese "borderland" of the Uyghurs has undergone aggressive assimilation and Han Chinese have been imported in large numbers, to the point where there are almost as many Han as Uyghurs. With Xi slated for another 7 years at the top spot, I don't really see that policy abating. Turmoil is one thing—and if policies like these continue, it's sure to have its fair share of it. But I have to agree that I don't see much disunity, or even a particularly drastic transformative shift in the Chinese government in the near- to medium-term. That the PRC might discard the pretence of communism—more of a branding tool, at this point, than a truly accurate descriptor of Chinese policy—doesn't necessitate an eager leap into the arms of Western democracy, either. Personally I think it comes from a desire to see the Western Era continue as long as possible or at the very least to not have the idea of Western dominance be challenged. The way to do that is to either coopt China into a Western ideal of modernism or smash it into a million pieces and make subservient puppets out of its remains. As for Xi, I'm getting the feeling he won't step down once his 10 years have gone by. Now to be sure nobody knows what goes on in Xi's head except for Xi and maybe his wife and daughter, the man is an enigma wrapped in a riddle, but given the nationalist and restorationist slant of all his writings and his increasingly all-present self-promotion he doesn't seem like the kind of guy who will simply bow to Party and Cadre whims and leave, especially not after his latest move to centralize the People's Liberation Army under himself as Commander and Chief. That's a good point, and when you phrase it that way it makes a lot more sense as to why those are such common refrains in FH; it's essentially allowing history to continue looking the way it does, and thus keeping Western hegemony unchallenged. I wonder about Xi, though. Maybe he's interested in openly holding power until he keels over, cultivating the largest cult of personality since Mao, but I get the feeling it would be much easier for him to maintain influence and even actual control if he continued the policy of handing off the political titles to others, and that by not doing that he risks being forcibly marginalized later on, especially if his current raft of policies end up unpopular/unsuccessful with enough people or with the party itself.
|
|
|
Post by Kubo Caskett on May 16, 2016 2:14:37 GMT
Personally I think it comes from a desire to see the Western Era continue as long as possible or at the very least to not have the idea of Western dominance be challenged. The way to do that is to either coopt China into a Western ideal of modernism or smash it into a million pieces and make subservient puppets out of its remains. As for Xi, I'm getting the feeling he won't step down once his 10 years have gone by. Now to be sure nobody knows what goes on in Xi's head except for Xi and maybe his wife and daughter, the man is an enigma wrapped in a riddle, but given the nationalist and restorationist slant of all his writings and his increasingly all-present self-promotion he doesn't seem like the kind of guy who will simply bow to Party and Cadre whims and leave, especially not after his latest move to centralize the People's Liberation Army under himself as Commander and Chief. That's a good point, and when you phrase it that way it makes a lot more sense as to why those are such common refrains in FH; it's essentially allowing history to continue looking the way it does, and thus keeping Western hegemony unchallenged. Though there is one novel called Ghost Fleet and averts that with a Third World War being started by some version of China after having a Cold War of sorts with the USA. Given that China's a huge market for Western mediums, you probably aren't going to be seeing Ghost Fleet adapted into a movie anytime soon; if there were it'd have to be Russia or some Megacorporation or worst case scenario North Korea (just ask Homefront and Red Dawn 2012 how that worked out for them).
|
|
Mathuen
Junior Member
马萨诸塞州, 中华人民共和国 (Trapped Yo)
Posts: 70
|
Post by Mathuen on May 19, 2016 6:02:58 GMT
Personally I think it comes from a desire to see the Western Era continue as long as possible or at the very least to not have the idea of Western dominance be challenged. The way to do that is to either coopt China into a Western ideal of modernism or smash it into a million pieces and make subservient puppets out of its remains. As for Xi, I'm getting the feeling he won't step down once his 10 years have gone by. Now to be sure nobody knows what goes on in Xi's head except for Xi and maybe his wife and daughter, the man is an enigma wrapped in a riddle, but given the nationalist and restorationist slant of all his writings and his increasingly all-present self-promotion he doesn't seem like the kind of guy who will simply bow to Party and Cadre whims and leave, especially not after his latest move to centralize the People's Liberation Army under himself as Commander and Chief. That's a good point, and when you phrase it that way it makes a lot more sense as to why those are such common refrains in FH; it's essentially allowing history to continue looking the way it does, and thus keeping Western hegemony unchallenged. I wonder about Xi, though. Maybe he's interested in openly holding power until he keels over, cultivating the largest cult of personality since Mao, but I get the feeling it would be much easier for him to maintain influence and even actual control if he continued the policy of handing off the political titles to others, and that by not doing that he risks being forcibly marginalized later on, especially if his current raft of policies end up unpopular/unsuccessful with enough people or with the party itself.
Certainly, that's a fair point and other leaders including Paramount Leaders like Big J have done that before, but Xi has set a precedent for new administrations in Post-Deng China purging leftovers from the previous government, something which can now just as easily apply to him if he steps down. He's been engaging in centralization of state power and the breaking of gentlemen agreements which have made it progressively harder and more dangerous for him to step down without being drowned in his tub or locked in one of those nice round rooms the Party has a year after he leaves office.
I'm not saying he won't step down once his 10 years are up, he certainly could and who knows maybe his reforms will work out perfectly and he'll be China's last strongman who managed to transition the government to a fully self-critical and self-repairing apparatus wholly dedicated to serving the people, as he so often touts is his goal, but his actions have given me a bit of pause in this regard, just enough to entertain the idea that he might not step down.
|
|
|
Post by guyverman1990 on Jul 9, 2017 23:56:22 GMT
It's been a while since I've posted on these forums. Anyways, here's another theory as to how things could realistically change in China in the near future : Perhaps the Communist party could end up splintering into two with one being more progressive and (somewhat) leaning towards liberalism and the other more conservative, maintaining the same ideals as how the government currently is.
|
|