So what's the deal in China, Henry

[Henry C.K. Liu]

This was posted on another list, but it started with Paula.

Brian:

With all due respect, you have to get out of your tunnel vision of what
free
information is and how it has been  distributed in the Western world for
the
past century and today.  This issue has been discussed in some length in
the
struggle on an "open. objective media" in the East/West, North/South
dialogues a few years back.
That fact is, mass communication as it is currently structured makes it
conceptually impossible to see the world from an non-Western alternative
perspective.
So its quite natural the whole Western world shakes its head and wonder
why
the Chinese leadership is so intransigent and stubborn. They say the 
Chinese
must be stupid to pursue such a self destructive, tyrannical system.
The fact is the Chinese leadership has no alternative but to following
the
current policy of national security and Western opinion has very little
effect on it.  This is generally true in all of Asia, Africa, and Latin
America, even the Mid-East.
As it is, some people, including myself, fear that China is moving too
far to
the right rather than not far enough.
Do you think the NY Times will print my postings in its op-ed pages?
Let me give one one example: in the last decade, the Western Human
Rights
organizations, with support form the State Department, focused on less
than
10 dissidents by name, who are all made famous in the West, while no one
talked about the institutional abuse of human rights in the US where
over 90%
of the prison population is non-white.  One cannot build a case of
statistical institutional human rights abuse in China, tried as some
might
have.
The way the US government treated Texas secessionist movements, Puerto
Rican
Independent movement, etc. even religious cults has been exceedingly
abusive
by the standards of its own culture.
By contrast, the way the China treats its dissidents has been very
lenient by
the tradition of its traditional repressive confucian culture.  Viewed
from
the perspective of Critical Legal Studies (culturally based theory of
justice), Chinese attitude toward political dissidents has been very
liberal.

As for you question about the CCP not being open to its own people. 
That is
itself an example of disinformation.  the policy of the CCP is openly
published every year for all to see.  In fact, it reflects very directly
the
vigorous struggle between left/right, region/central/,
reform/conservative
etc, within the party which is very democratically represented both in
location, age level, ethnicity and even ideology.  The common complaint
today for those who know China is that there is too much democracy, that
the
country seem to be going in all directions at once.  Even capitalist
traders
say that.  Study President Jiang's speech at the last Party Congress,
and you
will find everything, including the kitchen sink is included and
appeased.

All political systems dislike dissidents, political, cultural,
religious.
The degree to which a government tolerates dissidents is a function of
its
perceived security.
A revolutionary government, insecure by nature and by perception,
generally
takes no political prisoners, frequently resorting to political terror.
A few word about revolutionary political terror in Chinese history.
A political terror in early Tang history around 7th century had been
staged
by the secret police (kushi) which, like roaches, normally infesting
only the
subterraneous world, flourished into an open epidemic, fed by the
apprehension of a court haunted by the mentality of a garrison state.
At first, the victims of political terror were bona fide seditious
reactionaries and other deserving criminals whose downfall delights the
public, particularly the members of the emerging social forces.
Later, the complexity of revolutionary politics gave rise to ideological
polemics and esoteric sophistry that were twisted at will to implicate
anyone
not popular with the secret police.  Innocent men were then persecuted
at the
mirth of their political enemies and the frightened acquiescence of
their friends.  Finally, indiscriminate arrests became commonplace.
As has been wisely said, all it takes for evil to triumph is for enough
good
men to keep silent.

But there is no reign of political terror today in China that fits that
pattern.
And the fuss over Zhang is largely confined to the Western press and
protested by agitators of very dubious background in terms of patriotic
credibility.
Zhang was not prosecuted for his misguided ideas.  Calling him a union
activist is a insult to all union workers of the world.  He was found
guilty
of anti-state conspiracy involving hostile foreign forces.  He got 10
years,
not the death penalty, and chances are that he will be released and
exiled to
teach at Columbia within two or three years.  None of noises about him
really
care about him, they are aiming at bring down China.
Typically, a reign of terror begins as a temporary political necessity. 
In
time it inevitably degenerates into a dark age of arbitrary mass arrests
amid
an atmosphere of witch hunt.  As the social destructiveness of the
terror
intensifies, the political purpose of the terror would become diffused
and
unfocused, while unbridled personal ambition and runaway greed of the
secret
policemen become its main driving forces.  The reigns of terror follow
the
same predictable pattern across cultural and political borders.
If that actually happens in China, the Chinese people will rise up and
stop
it.  But nothing of the sort is even close to happening.
Chinese political ideology has a history of protracted contest between
the
vision of Da'tong (General Harmony) and the pragmatism of Xiao'kang
(Individual Contentment).  In contemporary political terms, it is a
struggle
between the noble grandeur of communal socialist vision and the
utilitarian
efficiency of individual private enterprise.  Mao's political rise had
been
predicated on his ability to skillfully manipulate the contention
between
these 2 ideologies for the benefit of an evolving new social order, and
his
post-humous fall was related to his doctrinal failure to balance the
same in
a
changing socioeconomic post revolution context. Deng Xiaoping's ideology
is
officially based on xiao'kang.  When Mao accused Deng of being a
capitalist
roader, he was not wrong.  If Mao were running China today, it is
debatable
if China would take very different roads.  It is a mistake to think
current
Chinese policy is permanent.
In the flow of history, there is no doubt that China will continue to
alternate in emphasis between these two poles, but the alternative
swings
must be framed in a rising spiral of progressiveness.  If the sum total
of
the movement is progressive, we are moving in the right direction.  By
every
measure, even by Western bourgeois standards, China has more freedom
today
than 2 decades ago.  Unfortunately, that may not be a positive
development
and will surely be exploited by dark forces.
That was what happened in Tiananmen, many supported the students at
first,
until it became clear that other sinister forces were effectively
exploiting
the situation and a political tragedy occurred.  China paid a heavy
price for
an error of timing, and the penalty has not been fully paid, even though
its
been 10 years.

Leninists, ask yourselves, what kind of world would it be if China's
communists government should fall like the Soviet Union.  It will set
progressive forces back a century.  China welcomes criticism, help,
solidarity from the entire left, but only if the intention is good and
the
vision clear.

Henry C.K. Liu




Brian Basgen wrote:

> Henry,
>
> >
> > Still, the problem is very complex and difficult.  It is made more
> > difficult
> > because the speed of change has been accelerated by technology, but the
> > speed of
> > the political process has not advanced.
> > In America, the problem of the minority and the minority community
> > development
> > face similar dilemmas.
>
>  If the whites use disinformation, painting human rights abuses in
> China, why is China sill unable to combat disinformation with it's
> only viable alternative: information?
>
>  The problem, still today, with the Chinese government is it's lack
> of adherence to freedom of information- not Western 'style'- but from
> within it's own ranks. Why is it impossible or impracticle for the
> CCP to be 'open' to it's own people- to not hide it's policies,
> practices, and decisions in any form whatever from it's people?
>
>  So long as this remains true, the Whites will continue to be sucessful.
>
> Regards,
>
>  Brian Basgen
>
> =============================
>  The Development of the Soviet Union
>    http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/
> =============================
>
>      --- from list leninist-international at lists.econ.utah.edu ---