I personally think he is a great man, but June 4th will harm his image.

Luckily he did crush the student protest. Look at what happen in Russia. After the collaspe of USSR, the entire countries began to be governed by a more greedy government and organized crime become too powerful . Also, economy collaspe and most of the wealth fall onto a few people hands. I would not want china to have that. So, I totally support Deng decision to crush the protest.


China are the world fastest growing economy in the world and is a mutlti-ethnic nations. If it choose democracry, economy could not have grow faster and small state will starting to demand autonomy and even call breakaway from china. Look at what happen to Russia in chechnya.

I also do not want to see parliament member beating each others out if they didn't agree on certain issue just like in Taiwan.

I think Deng is the greatest leader in the communist party of china.

There was a recent anniversart celebration of his 100th birthday in PRC.

I think Deng was great, without Deng, China would still be very poor und undeveloped today. Most notable was his reform.

Deng Xiaoping created many economic reforms in PROC he was truly one of the greatest leaders of China.

If he could team up with Zhou Enlai without the intervention of Mao and co. then he could have been one of the greatest (this is one big IF).

I agree with all of the above, & also Deng did not compromise his integrity through the tumultuous Mao years.

Deng was important in the modernisation of China. However how much can you really contribue to one individual? I reckon these economic and social reforms that Deng introduced were bound to happen no matter who was in charge, as reform was a rising trend and China was going to pursue economic growth through a free market system as opposed to a planned economy.

Hi all, I think Deng as perhaps China's most capable leader since Sun Yat Sen. Not as great as Mao but more qualified to lead the country with his wisdom and pragmatism in contrast to Mao's wackiness.

As to the 1989 affair I agree with jiangji that he did the right thing despite the brutality and tragedies. The student movement had already won siginficant concessions and quite frankly pushed things too far and too quickly. The governments hand was forced. It was simplistic that they could think a politically immature and poor China could become an instant successfull democracy and if the government collapsed I have no doubts that there would have been total anarchy, civil war, fragmentation and a return to warlordism. Millions would have died and hundreds of millions would have suffered greatly.

I also think that if Deng was a brutal leader he would have acted earlier but waited for the last possible moment to crush the movement. I have the impression that he had wanted to resolve the matter peacefully but then was forced to act as he did. Great leaders have to make and follow through with the toughest decisions and he did.

Deng Xiaoping is quite popular in Russia, alot of people think Russia should have followed the same road as China and taken the gradual approach rather than change the system overnight. Really, the problems in Russia (corruption, wealth and power in the hands of just a few) were already in the Soviet system but were less visible. Democratic reforms made them visible and public. I think Deng was a very pragmatic leader and brought much-needed more moderate thinking after the ideological extremes of Mao's period. He brought the stabilisation needed for the country to build and develop and I think he has made an overall positive contribution.
But at the same time, when people say that if it were not for Deng China would have been like Russia, or gone into fragmentation (like with Russia and Chechnya, as someone mentioned), I think this is just guesses. Alot of people predicted Russia would break apart, but it didn't. (Chechnya is not a case of a people wanting to break away from Russia, but that's all too complicated to go into here). As for 1989, it's sort of funny that the reformers of late Qing era are called progressive and portrayed as fighting for the people's rights and good of the country, but the students of 1989 (in the Party's eyes anyway) are radicals and dangerous. I agree that there is always a risk of extremists emerging in such situations, and there is always a risk of destabilisation, but these are developments we guess at, not things we can know for sure.
Of course these forces are politically immature and often have too many illusions and impatience, but the communists too were once a group of impatient young people, politically immature and full of illusions. I think it iwould have been wiser to talk to the students and engage them, not shut them out and let their radical mood only build up stronger. I think it is always wiser in the long-term for this kind of negotiation approach, because the more you shut these other groups out, the more radical they become, and the more problems ultimately build up, not always visible at first, but at some point they start to break into the open. The short and medium term effect of Deng's legacy has been generally positive I think, but the longer term effect is not so certain.

Hi Yizheng, I would say that Russia did break up after the revolution, or I should say the Soviet Union and this issue is still not resolved as is now seen in Georgia. If the same happened in China then we would see Tibet, Xinjiang, perhaps Yunnan and Inner Mongolia, other border and minority areas pushing for complete independance as has happened with the defunct Soviet Union. Also competing self serving regional power factions would have developed within China proper as has happened in the past. And I doubt if many would have had a sincere democratic facade.

The conditions in Russia were different. There was near complete disilusionment from all sectors of society and most telling in the military and within the government. There were politicians involved. Nearly everyone was glad to see communism go. In China, it appears it was mainly students egged on by their leaders pushing for change. IMO opinion there was little overt support from other sectors of society.

Historically China has never fared well without a strong centralized government in charge. It all may be guesswork and what if's but I still think that if central leadership gave in then it would have opened up a Pandoras Box of chaos.

Another point, I don't blame the students but I think their leadership have a lot to answer for. I don't know how much in control they were of the situation but I believe they should have called off the demonstration a week or so earlier. They already had achieved a major victory by building the foundations for furthering their cause . They should have told the students to go home and perhaps return the following year. Instead they pushed for a showdown and thats what they got. I think the government would have been more in a mood to listen to them if they didn't appear so overtly threatening and push things to the extreme. If this had happened I am sure we would have a vastly different political system in China now.

The fear of loss of social order and its implied threat of overwhelming chaos I think is one of the most significant underlying factors that inhibits political development in China today.

That is true, it would be nearly impossible to have a peaceful decentralised form of government in China considering its massive population of 1.3 billion. There should be more political development in China, especially in terms of increased democracy and freedoms. Deng Xiaoping had very little choice during the Tiananmen Protest. Think from his perspective: if Deng did nothing the status quo could be seriously undermined, thus he was compelled to lauch a crackdown. However these unfortunate events could have been avoided. I think Deng was not proactive enough in resolving the Tiananmen Protests peacefully. So the Tiananmen Massacre will be forever a scar on Deng's progressive political policies.

Hi again, to answer a couple of the points you made, Changsham,
first, yes, the Soviet Union and not Russia broke up. Really, when you look at it, the Soviet Union (which simply was the re-establishment of the Russian Empire under a new name) was also a result of colonial expansion by Russia in the nineteenth century (into Central Asia and the Caucasus). Empire (or its modern variants) is not the only form of union between peoples. Small countries around a large and more powerful neighbour cannot escape their geographical reality even if they are independent. It is up to the large and more powerful neighbour to offer them conditions that attract them to form a strong and close alliance. Russia does not at all seek to establish sovereignty over Georgia or any other former part of the Soviet Union. It is afraid of America/NATO establishing control over this region. It has not so far been very successful at making loyal and voluntary allies of its small neighbours (with some exceptions - Armenia for example).
Xinjiang, Tibet and Inner Mongolia are Qing-era conquests, similar situation to the Soviet Union I think. Have not empires (or multiethnic countries) always been growing or shrinking, consolidating or fragmenting at various times over the centuries? Countries are like people I think, and in life we know there are bitter marriage breakups and also divorce where the two manage to stay friends afterwards. That is the area to concentrate on - how to manage these processes in a way so that relations stay friendly and close. I am not at all saying I support independence for all these places, I'm just saying that nothing is frozen, no matter how wise a government you have, and the possibility is always there.
As far as Deng goes and the mood of the people, I would compare Deng not at all to the 1980s perestroika reformers in the Soviet Union, but to Khrushchev and his reforms. Ok, Khrushchev definitely did not have Deng's economic pragmatism, but the mood I think was similar. Coming after the extremes of Stalin's years, Khrushchev represented real hope and people's mood was energetic and positive. The same kind of thing happened - the 'thaw' that Khrushchev brought started to look more like an out-of-control flood and more radical moods and demands were emerging. Some people wanted to go too far too fast, and unfortunately, Khrushchev got overthrown. Deng was more skilled at keeping the situation in his control.
Then came Brezhnev, and many many people in Russia today are still very nostalgic about the Brezhnev era. It is the era of stability and time when people lived better, had better material life, and the political controls were not so rigid, the system authoritarian but not the kind of dictatorship it was under Stalin. So people remember it very positively at the personal level, but at the national level it was a disaster for the Soviet Union. It was a time of stagnation and complacency, growing corruption and economic imbalances that were kept out of sight until they grew too big to deal with. People say now it was the reformers who made the Soviet Union collapse, but it wasn't, it was the contradictions within the system itself, contradictions that the Brezhnev-era chose not to deal with while there was still time.
I still don't think Deng did all he could have done at an earlier stage to show willingness to talk with the students. But that is also understandable from the point of view of a system based on one party or group with a monopoly hold on power. Other groups want to be involved, but sharing some of the power resource with them is a double-edged sword - you maybe succeed in lessening their radicalism and even getting part of them on your side, but you also risk diluting your power monopoly. Ultimately it comes down to this - very old dilemma.
Also, the idea that if these more radical forces did manage to get power this would result in chaos, centralisation falling apart, this a guess. I agree with you that decentralised government has never worked in China so far, and in this Russia is similar, not the huge population, but a huge and diverse territory, and it is a country with a very strong centralised tradition. But often in history you see that when a new group, even seemingly radical, find themselves suddenly confronting the reality of power and the real issues in the country, they are often forced to abandon a lot of their ideas and illusions and suddenly start to follow the same old patterns in many respects, because that is what works. In Russia, politicians say that the people are not politically mature and responsible enough yet, but they never will learn to be responsible if not given the chance. Everyone is a demanding impatient teenager before becoming a more prudent and reasonable adult. I think that is a lesson that might end up being the less successful side to Deng's legacy.

Deng had made importance on the "legal system construction" and was critical of the rule of man. Considering his influence within and out the party, he could have done more than that. And we would have got a more modern political system.

I especially interested in his way of handing off power. Instead of choosing from the political cliques that were already formed in the Party, he chose Jiang Zemin, the general secretary of Shanghai at that time as the General Secretary. Jiang is the PRC's first scholarly leader without any military background. His industrial experiences and capability of handling political affairs deeply impressed Deng. After his retirement, Deng still helped Jiang to stabilize the power. With Deng's help, China gradually overcame the great crises.

It all depends on whether you believe in the natural progression of history or not. I agree that the economic and social reforms were bound to happen, but Deng was the spark to the fuse, the catalyst to these reforms. Without Deng, the reforms may have occurred sometime, but what was recquired after Mao was someone who was prepared to initiate whole new direction in economic and social policy for the good of China. Deng was that 'someone'.

I think June 4th, 89' woke the government up that they need to loosen controls over the people if they want to survive as a political system. No more overt repressive bullshit. Open the economy, let the people make money and their own decisions in life. Communism more or less died in China that day. The revolution succeeded, although there was no overthrow of the system, the system changed from within. Chinese have never known true democracy, and I think democracy will equal anarchy here. Maoism would be better for China than democracy. The government in China is not bad, it is not repressive, it does not step on anyone's human rights and liberties. Basically the Communist Party of China is the party of the middle class, the upper class, and yes, the rich. Weird to say that, but thats China.

Deng Xiaoping was a great man. His mug needs to be on the money. He opened the nation to the world. He got rid of the Maoist nutters who was screwing up China for the past forty years. He opened it to the World, and he is the reason why I am here in China and I am grateful for him for that.

Deng Xiaoping realised to keep China stable, stong economic prosperity was the key. Deng stated "No matter if it is a white cat or a black cat; as long as it can catch mice, it is a good cat." This quote encapsulates the shift in China from rigid communist ideology to embracing the free market. Therefore pragmatism was a virtue of Deng.

Maoism would be better for China than democracy.


I find this a very intriguing comment. Because i'd definitely disagree with this. True, it would take some time for China to flourish under democracy [as in most other countries, like Britain and the USA] but i'd much prefer the end result of democracy to the anarchy and chaos of Maoist political theory, where power is as fluid as water and there are no guiding social or political norms to bring stability.

It must be remembered that for a long time the Chinese were cynnical of democracy, due to the failures of the Republic of China. However the rise of democracy, embodied in the Tiananmen Square Protests, reflects some of the Chinese desires to modernise. Liberalism and democracy are highly regarded virtues, but implementing them in China will take time. English democracy took about a thousand years to develop, from the Magna Carta to the Westminster System. Whereas China has been primarily under authoritarian rule, thus democracy is a foreign concept to the Chinese.

Good points there, i was referring to the longevity of the development of democracy in my previous post, but i think most Chinese now would rather live under a democracy than a Maoist dictatorship.