Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Would you call China a "Soviet Union 2.0"?


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 sunshuhan

sunshuhan

    Citizen (Shumin 庶民)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 1 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    China 1949-present

Posted 15 June 2009 - 01:40 PM

China is very similar to USSR in the 1980s, what do you think?

Similarities:
1. In the name of Communism, in the fact they are both Capitalist.
2. Policies like Glasnost and Perestroika - Gai Ge Kai Fang (改革开放)
3. Corruption problem left over by Brezhnev and Jiang Zemin.
4. Government system - politburo, supreme soviet, etc.
5. Atheist society (in my school in China, everybody is atheist! That means after half a century, China will be 99% atheist)
6. The state used to control everything but now tries to give some freedom (like Gorbachev's policies)
7. Massive military forces.
8. Chenchenya and Tibet - troublemakers. I don't like Dalai Lama by the way. Once he dies, people will forget about Tibet.

#2 ahxiang

ahxiang

    Prime Minister (Situ/Chengxiang 司徒/丞相)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 1,617 posts

Posted 16 June 2009 - 09:49 PM

China is very similar to USSR in the 1980s, what do you think?

Similarities:
1. In the name of Communism, in the fact they are both Capitalist.
2. Policies like Glasnost and Perestroika - Gai Ge Kai Fang (改革开放)
3. Corruption problem left over by Brezhnev and Jiang Zemin.
4. Government system - politburo, supreme soviet, etc.
5. Atheist society (in my school in China, everybody is atheist! That means after half a century, China will be 99% atheist)
6. The state used to control everything but now tries to give some freedom (like Gorbachev's policies)
7. Massive military forces.
8. Chenchenya and Tibet - troublemakers. I don't like Dalai Lama by the way. Once he dies, people will forget about Tibet.



You got some major points omitted.

Putin is a Russian nationalist, not a communist. Russians had negated communism. Whereas in China, Communists remain communists in name.

Russia made money on oil and gas, not on coolie and sex slave. In China, the fortune is built on the miseries of billion peasants and their children.

Russia is back to Eastern Orthodox religion, while in China there is now a pretension to pretend to be Confucian.

There are numerous other things that do not apply.

Check out the following WSJ article, and you will see the fundamental difference between China and Russia.

OPINION

Solzhenitsyn Was a Russian Patriot
By ROBERT CONQUEST
August 8, 2008; Page A15

Those of us who had long been concerned to expose and resist Stalinism, in the West as in the USSR, learned much from Alexander Solzhenitsyn. I met him in Zurich, Switzerland, in 1974, soon after he was expelled from the Soviet Union -- the result of his novel, "The Gulag Archipelago," being published in Paris. He was personally pleasant; I have a photograph of the two of us, he holding a Russian edition of my book, "The Great Terror," with evident approbation. He asked if I would translate a "little" poem of his. Of course I agreed.

The little poem, "Prussian Nights," turned out to be 2,000 lines! Thankfully, he and his circle helped. It was an arresting composition, increasing our knowledge of him and his times -- something worth reading, and rereading, for its stunning historical background.


Ken Fallin

Solzhenitsyn was one of the most striking public figures of our time. How should one judge him? As a writer, up there with Pasternak? As a moralist, up there with Czeslaw Milosz? But he should also be judged as one who might have won two Nobel prizes -- not just for Literature, but also for Peace.

In his public capacity, he felt bound to stand forward as the conscience of his people. He said, in a July 2007 interview in Der Spiegel, "My views developed in the course of time. But I have always believed in what I did and never acted against it." Yet above all, he saw himself as a writer -- a Russian writer.

For most of us, Russian literature is like a triangle around Pushkin, Dostoevsky, and Chekhov -- Tolstoy is in his own class. Solzhenitsyn, on the strength of "August 1914" alone, competes in the Tolstoy lane.

He first came to attention in the Soviet Union, and around the world, in 1963, with the publication of "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich." It is a short work, avoiding anything like sensationalism. Which is why, by great luck, it got permission to be printed -- as was not the case with his later works. But as Galina Vishnevskaya (wife of Mstislav Rostropovich, in whose dacha Solzhenitsyn lived from 1968 while writing much of "The Gulag Archipelago") put it in her autobiography: "The Soviet government had let the genie out of the bottle, and however hard they tried later, they couldn't put it back in."

"Denisovich" was followed by the well-known dramas which attended his whole career as a writer -- especially surrounding his masterpieces, "The Gulag Archipelago" and "The First Circle." Most readers will agree that Solzhenitsyn's status as a world-class writer and sage depended on these works.

In his last years, he showed himself, as always, to be a Russian patriot. But this led him to take political stances that have been seen as anti-American. Indeed, even when he lived in this country and spoke publicly, as at Harvard in 1978, he was hard on much of America's culture -- though he focused on U.S. intellectuals' delusions about communism.

"Prussian Nights" was about his role as an artillery captain in the Soviet Army's 1945 advance into East Prussia, a few weeks before his arrest for having referred disrespectfully to Stalin in a letter to a friend. It is also the first piece of writing in which one finds an American context.

"Forward, forward, the front surges," he wrote, through the darkening winter:

"Studebakers, to support us,

Are hauling lighter three-inch cannons.

'Hey, there, stovepipe! Grab our tail!'

Dodges, the three-quarter ton ones,

Rush the forty-fives to fight.

Shorty mortars ride in place

At the back of Chevrolets. . . ."

I saw these transportation vehicles myself in the Balkans, at the other end of the long front. Not much sign of anti-Americanism there!

But things change. In these last few years of his life, he not only further stressed his Russian nationalism, he made various attacks on American policy and behavior -- such as the NATO bombing of Belgrade (but not the Russian bombing of Grozny).

Some giants of Russian literature appear more preachy than is common in the West, a trait that brings us to what many see as weaknesses in the Russian tradition. First is the feeling, without basis, that one is somehow being cheated -- as in Gogol; second is a tendency to exaggerate or invent. Yet along with these weaknesses there is also painful honesty.

I did not sense the weaknesses when I met him. He was religious and Russian, but without exhibition -- though it became clear he embodied Fyodor Tyuchev's famous dictum that "Russia can neither be grasped by the mind, nor measured by any common yardstick -- no attitude to her other than one of blind faith is admissible."

He remained staunchly anticommunist, noting in the July 2007 interview in Der Spiegel that the October Revolution "broke Russia's back. The Red Terror unleashed by its leaders, their willingness to drown Russia in blood, is the first and foremost proof of it." He also hoped that "the bitter Russian experience, which I have been studying and describing all my life, will be for us a lesson that keeps us from new disastrous breakdowns."

Such was his consistent view of Stalinism. He now combined it with approval of, and honors from, the new Russia that many feel is an obstacle to international peace and amity. Ideas have unintended consequences, even those of geniuses.

Mr. Conquest, a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, is the author of over 20 books on Soviet history and international affairs, including "The Great Terror: A Reassessment" (40th anniversary edition, Oxford, 2007).

See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.

And add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.


Putin and Solzhenitsyn shared the same views. Both Russian nationalists, knowing that the October Revolution "broke Russia's back. The Red Terror unleashed by its leaders, their willingness to drown Russia in blood, is the first and foremost proof of it.". We Chinese fail to see the same thing, not knowing the millions killed before, during and after the revolution were our own brethrens.

Edited by ahxiang, 16 June 2009 - 11:37 PM.


#3 JB_Xyooj

JB_Xyooj

    Chief State Secretary (Shangshu Ling 尚书令)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 913 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:MN, Mpls
  • Interests:Music, Reading, Gaming, Clubing, Socializing
  • Languages spoken:Hmong & English
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:Hmong
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Ethnicities,Peoples
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Hmong (miao) History

Posted 16 July 2009 - 04:43 PM

If I recall someone telling me something on this form, or in asiafinest.com
"Whatever worked for the Chinese, it is consider a Chinese thing."

Something along that line... Despite China living by the guidelines of Soviet Russia, and Leninism.
Regardless of what anyone say... China has always used whatever method to keep its sovereignty.

As ahxiang said... Communism is just Communism in name in China... Its quite shallow... In a sense... a Red Dynasty.

-Signature in construction: please entertain yourself by hating on Call of Duty Thank You.


#4 brightness

brightness

    Executive State Secretary (Shangshu Puye 尚书仆射)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 795 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History

Posted 16 July 2009 - 09:39 PM

China is very similar to USSR in the 1980s, what do you think?

Similarities:
1. In the name of Communism, in the fact they are both Capitalist.
2. Policies like Glasnost and Perestroika - Gai Ge Kai Fang (改革开放)
3. Corruption problem left over by Brezhnev and Jiang Zemin.
4. Government system - politburo, supreme soviet, etc.
5. Atheist society (in my school in China, everybody is atheist! That means after half a century, China will be 99% atheist)
6. The state used to control everything but now tries to give some freedom (like Gorbachev's policies)
7. Massive military forces.
8. Chenchenya and Tibet - troublemakers. I don't like Dalai Lama by the way. Once he dies, people will forget about Tibet.


Chinese reforms succeeded in the 1980's while Glasnost and Perestroika failed miserably because Chinese reforms were localized initiatives and experiments to begin with, then replicated to other locations if found successful; in other words, a bottom-up reformation . . . whereas Gorbachev and his brain trust were trying to impose reform from top down. Whether China will continue its prosperity or transform in to some kind Brezhnev moribound bureacratic state (a step back from Kruchev's reforms, which actually would have been similar to Deng's) depends on whether they can continue Deng's pragmatism and confidence to let the various local economic zones to try their own things. Japan already has had two lost decades (since its stock market collapse in 1990, and subsequent BOJ/Japanese government mismanagement); the US looks like ready to copy Japan's mistakes, with probably worse results as the US is already a heavy debtor. We shall see if China will follow the same Keynsian steps, or fall back to a Brezhnev-style clamp down, or letting the market flourish on its own. Only time will tell.

The situation in Tibet would get worse if the current Dalai were dead. The younger generation, of both Tibetan and (Han nationlist) Chinese, are much more idealistic/utopist and less prone to compromises. Massive bloodshed there would be very bad for Tibetans and (Han nationalist) Chinese. If the global economy continue to worsen, a large scale global war involving thermonuclear weapons will be in the cards; Chinese will need all the good will in the world.

#5 polar_zen

polar_zen

    Supreme Censor (Yushi Dafu 御史大夫)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 1,026 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States
  • Interests:art, history, science, martial arts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 17 July 2009 - 12:27 AM

You got some major points omitted.

Putin is a Russian nationalist, not a communist. Russians had negated communism. Whereas in China, Communists remain communists in name.

Russia made money on oil and gas, not on coolie and sex slave. In China, the fortune is built on the miseries of billion peasants and their children.

Russia is back to Eastern Orthodox religion, while in China there is now a pretension to pretend to be Confucian.


Putin was not the leader of Russia in the '80's. The Soviet Union was most definitely not supported by the Orthodox Church, it was a secular state that promoted atheism.
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." - Aldous Huxley




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users