Even as China's imperial reach expands -- witness the recent summit in Beijing of African leaders -- its contradictions and disparities continue to grow.
The Chinese leadership is not unaware of this, with Premier Wen Jiabao (
It has, however, failed to develop a coherent strategy to deal with the country's problems.
Former Chinese president Jiang Zemin (
Indeed, the proletariat has become the problem child because with the rationalization of some sectors of the economy, they needed to be laid off in increasing numbers.
Paradoxically, though, they were essential to the nation's rapid industrialization as cheap labor was needed for it to compete in global trade.
With priorities focused on industrial/urban economy and the resultant neglect and pauperization of the rural sector, China's teeming millions in the countryside trekked to urban centers to find employment.
The resultant urban squalor and rural misery, compounded by corruption and high taxes, was the very antithesis of what Marxism promised and China's communist regime professed.
But there's no need to worry, the regime argued. Some "creative" interpretation of Marxism should do the trick. After all, Marx had reportedly said somewhere that to advance from capitalism to socialism, we need to harness and optimize all the productive forces.
In other words, like the Industrial Revolution in Europe, the resultant squalor and misery of the capitalist process is the price China has to pay in order to eventually achieve the Marxist nirvana.
Hence, China is being true to the Marxist ideology in hurtling through the phase of its own industrial revolution and creating all the wealth which then can be shared fairly by all its citizens.
By the same token, China is in an advantageous position with the communist regime overseeing its industrialization to help it avoid the pitfalls of Western societies, such as social strife and alleged moral decay.
China will therefore continue to grow as a stable society under the Chinese Communist Party's monopoly on power.
That means Marxism remains as relevant today as ever -- at least that is the party's argument.
The study of Marxism thus remains an important part of the curriculum in educational institutions and among party cadres.
Indeed, there is a new urgency about it under President Hu Jintao's (
But it is a new kind of Marxism which promotes rapid economic growth and looks indulgently at new riches and high living.
And the contradictions so exposed are explained away as part of a stage the society has to go through to reach perfection.
The problem is that the transition from industrial/urban phase with its concomitant social and economic tensions to eventual social harmony is going to be long and strife-ridden.
There is widespread misery in the rural areas. Chen Guidi (
They wrote of how the peasants are at the mercy of local communist party hacks who plunder the village treasuries and impose all sorts of vexatious taxes.
And these party functionaries are getting away with it because any challenge from within a village results in arrests and beatings. Chen and Wu have documented cases where some villagers were even killed for daring to voice opposition.
Not surprisingly, the book was banned in China after its first successful print run frightened the authorities of its larger impact.
Whether or not China reaches its Marxist future, it can always go back to its "idyllic" Confucian past because no rationalization of Marxist theory will help in dealing with the problems China is facing in reality.
Here, good old Confucius and his values are being harnessed by the party to uphold social and political order.
Hu has rediscovered Confucian teachings to underpin his goal of a "harmonious society."
In a speech last year, the president invoked Confucius, who emphasized the virtues of harmony, respect for authority, social hierarchy, the role of morality and other similar virtues.
The party is hoping that if only people would go back to old Confucian values of respecting authority and social order, China's rulers wouldn't have much to worry about.
The communist leaders, however, wouldn't want to be reminded that Confucius also emphasized good governance and an implied social contract that might entitle people to rebel if the rulers weren't doing their jobs properly.
The party has engaged in feverish activity to promote Confucianism, hoping that it will promote a "harmonious society."
As Jonathan Watts, the Guardian newspaper's Beijing correspondent, wrote: "Confucian temples are being rebuilt, school textbooks include increasing references to the teachings, at least 18 universities have started courses in Confucian studies, and the government is using the sage's name to project China overseas through a 10 billion program to establish 100 Confucius institutes worldwide by 2010."
China's leaders either do not see or are just turning a blind eye to the contradictions that abound in reconciling Marxism and Confucian teachings.
Their brand of Marxism, a version of free-wheeling capitalism to suit a given situation, is devoid of ethics and morality. Confucian values are supposed to humanize it in some miraculous ways.
The party has recently extolled the value of hard work, diligence, obedience and so on.
At the same time, it has condemned lawlessness and the pursuit of profit at the expense of others.
The balm of Confucian values being promoted by the authorities is like telling hungry masses that they can eat cake if they don't have bread.
China might not be in the same stage as the French Revolution, but if greed, avarice and corruption of the ruling elite and their entrepreneurial class continue at this pace, there is no predicting when the entire edifice might crumble.
Sushil Seth is a writer based in Australia.
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
RSS