ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[Pannonian]

I have to say, while not the greatest student of Chinese history, I cannot recall reading about ANY other period where they were both this unified and had this degree of personal freedom and prosperity at the same time. I realize they are not free in the sense that Europe is, but it is pretty impressive how far they have come. I might not concur about Mao's role....but that would be for the Monastery.

Deng Xiaoping was probably the most effective and liberal ruler they've had since Kang Xi. His technocratic dynasty has been changing chairmen with hardly any noticeable differences.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Deng Xiaoping was probably the most effective and liberal ruler they've had since Kang Xi. His technocratic dynasty has been changing chairmen with hardly any noticeable differences.

"So long as it hunts mice" eh? Strikes me as he, more than Mao, may have helped engender the shift away from peasant communism.

[Pannonian]

"So long as it hunts mice" eh? Strikes me as he, more than Mao, may have helped engender the shift away from peasant communism.

That's why I think Deng Xiaoping has been incredibly liberal by Chinese standards, even with the Tiananmen Square massacre on his record. Chinese dynasties have tended to start with mass bloodshed followed by a period of stability while the memory of said bloodshed was still fresh in everyone's mind, with periodic upheavals with each succession. Deng managed to recover from the poverty and stagnation of the Mao period (probably as low as China had ever been without being at war), and lift the country to a level where, for the individual Chinese who doesn't aspire to electing the national government, life is comparable with that of westerners in liberal democracies. And what's more, most of this was achieved long after he was dead, whilst following the direction he'd set. A quite remarkable administrator.

I read an American paper a while back (I found it whilst looking for Glantz's study of the Soviet offensive in Manchuria) examining the Sino-Vietnamese war, where PLA traditionalists wanted to demonstrate the validity of their ideas. Deng's faction disagreed and favoured a more slimline, modernised army, but gave the traditionalists their way against the Vietnamese. The PLA got thrashed by the Vietnamese reservists, without ever achieving their tactical aim of forcing the regular Vietnamese army regiments to commit and get pinned down. A regular unit did get involved late on because they got bored and wanted some of the action before it was over. In the end, the Chinese did reach their objectives and declared victory, the Vietnamese inflicted punishing losses on the Chinese with minimal losses and minimal risk without risking any of their regular army and declared victory, while Deng achieved complete political victory over his dissidents but didn't bother declaring it. As a point of interest, the Chinese declared their objectives beforehand, together with their intention not to use their air force, so as to reassure everyone (not least the Vietnamese) that this was to be a limited operation. Basically they stated their objective and their intention to use land forces only, pushed forward with exorbitant losses until they reached the objectives, declared victory and returned home, all for the purpose of settling an internal debate in the Chinese government. Hilariously incomprehensible to our western perspectives.

[drone]

Obama had the chance to force the Republican hawks in Congress to put up/shut up on extended action against ISIS and he either blew it or just doesn't want to give up his ill-gotten extended executive powers. Fails as both a Chicago politician and a Constitutional scholar.

Relevant thread ambience.

[HoreTore]

Deng Xiaoping a liberal...? He was anything but.

Deng Xiaoping was the kind of man who accepted no opinion but his own, and eradicated all dissent. I still like him, but that's purely because I'm not one of the dissenting voices.

I am amazed at how quickly American conservatives become apologists for communist hardliners.


Still, Deng had little to do with unification, nationalism and the end of the fractionalism. That was Mao and the revolution, I'm afraid. You would have to look very hard to find sectarian interests in 1971. Credit Deng with calming the majority, but silencing the minority was all Mao.

[Pannonian]

Deng Xiaoping a liberal...? He was anything but.

Deng Xiaoping was the kind of man who accepted no opinion but his own, and eradicated all dissent. I still like him, but that's purely because I'm not one of the dissenting voices.

I am amazed at how quickly American conservatives become apologists for communist hardliners.


Still, Deng had little to do with unification, nationalism and the end of the fractionalism. That was Mao and the revolution, I'm afraid. You would have to look very hard to find sectarian interests in 1971. Credit Deng with calming the majority, but silencing the minority was all Mao.

Deng Xiaoping was liberal by Chinese standards. I challenge you to find a Chinese ruler/government more liberal than his since Kang Xi that was also successful. That's 300 years of Chinese government for you to look at to find one that was more liberal.

And when I talked about chaos, I was referring to the Cultural Revolution, which was as bad as any of Stalin's crackdowns, with the possible exception of the Holodomor. The very top of the elite remaining in place is not stability when you have millions being purged. As far as internal repression goes, Deng's biggest purge was the several thousand (upper limit) who were offed in the Tiananmen affair, either during the initial massacre or afterwards. That's small fry by Chinese standards.

[Brenus]

"I was referring to the Cultural Revolution, which was as bad as any of Stalin's crackdowns, with the possible exception of the Holodomor." Excepted of course there is no evidence that the "holodomor" was political and not a bad political decision based on political/economical prejudices/pre-conceptions (as in the Indian and Irish Famines where "the free market economy" should have auto-regulated. Well, technically, it did in killing millions).
However, the Cultural Revolution was clearly a political crack-down.