By Anne Teoh for the Saker Blog
China, China : Part III
In pursuit of President Xi Jinping’s, “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.”
Modern Chinese history did not evolve in isolation; there were influences from countries like Soviet Russia (up to a point when Soviet technical aid with the Wuhan Bridge construction left with the blueprints), Eastern Europe and the US. However, following an eclectic reading of China’s modern leaders and major historic events as a critical and detached observer, I am inclined to believe it was largely due to
the ‘industry and self-sufficiency inculcated through centuries of Confucian culture and the meritocratic state mechanism ( from the imperial examinations) that are paramount in securing the vetted quality needed of its leaders to empower China with such an incredulous and phenomenal transformation in over thirty years. This is the inner core values of Chinese civilization that remain intact, vigorous and flexible through dynastic rules, foreign invasions, revolutions, counter –revolutions and globalization.
Recently, at the 19the CCP Congress President Xi Jinping proposed the deletion of ‘limited term’ to be applied to China’s five yearly presidency tenure. He had majority support from party members and succeeded in securing extended, but as yet unspecified, tenure for his position as Head of State. Immediately, some western media wasted no time to daub Xi as ‘dictator’ or autocrat, accusing him of seeking to dominate the world; a groundless suspicion of their own making as usual. Some China hands, more sympathetic to China, compared Xi with Lee Kuan Yew and Angela Merkel, both highly successful and with very long tenures as PM.
However, none has given Xi the credit he deserves. Xi is to be greatly applauded for his Zen-like activation of the motion. He did it at the precise moment, at the right time in the right place; a perfect configuration: but with so much demonizing around, somehow, the world missed out a well-deserved eulogy for Xi’s handling of the 19th Congress. However, if we connect Xi’s ‘ Socialism with Chinese characteristics,’ to the Chinese dream Xi had often revived since 2012 and of which The China Daily alluded to as the “integrative and transformative vision for China; an overarching unifying principle for the Chinese people,” we’re closer to understanding what is meant when Xi talked about “socialism with Chinese characteristics.”
Deng Xiao Ping first coined the phrase when he famously introduced his idea of a mixed economy which took into account that capitalism = a market economy; but modern China, founded by the CCP in Deng Xiao Ping’s time, also has a ‘Planned’ (5 year plan) economy.’ Hence ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics,’ is an economic model of the modernization of China using a mixed ‘planned’ and ‘market’ economy. Though this distinctive phrase was written in the constitution in 1992 at the 14 Congress, it is widely recognized to be in line with Mao’s advocacy to “adhere to Marxism and to integrate it with Chinese realities.” To understand what this socialism means, it’s necessary to follow the course of modern Chinese history from Mao to Xi Jinping. What is ‘socialism’ in the Chinese perspective?
According to Chinese friends in the 80s, China had a golden age, from 1949 – 56 when the Chinese people were united and almost achieved ‘pure’ communism. There was full equality, jobs for life, aka the ‘iron rice bowl,’ and communal living. It did not then matter whether someone was a scientist, professor, artist or cleaner. They all had equal status and a community with a shared destiny. It peaked with Mao’s introduction of democratic reform using the late Zhou Confucian advocacy, ‘Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom and a Thousand Schools of Thought Contend,’ a liberalizing movement whereby intellectuals were encouraged to make constructive criticisms of the bureaucracy. But Mao’s effort at democratic reforms turned into a hotbed for radical dissent on The Democracy Wall. In retrospect, it was tantamount to opening up Pandora’s box and cans of worms; human nature being the stuff of maximum, and usually, subjective variables – all of which were understandable in that time of radical revolution. There were even posters calling for the CCP to be brought down at which point the curtain came down on freedom of speech. The long suffering and self-sacrificing veterans, like Mao whose wives and children were executed, those whose families and friends were tortured and executed and all those on the physically defying, grueling Long March would not kowtow to the upstarts with verbiage but no substance. Socialism in China was forged with the ubiquity of ’zhi koo’ meaning ‘eat bitter’ and is the lingua franca for revolution and progressive reforms’ much akin to changing base metals to gold in alchemy; the gold being purity rather than wealth.
Nonetheless, this period provides a vignette of modern political awareness in Maoist era, which was saturated with political metaphors till eventually, the counter-revolutionaries were defeated by the anti-rightist campaign and Mao’s Thought, “ On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People.” The ‘socialist’ elements in this period are facts – full employment, full equality and a sharing culture.
There are also the implied facts – that Mao was a Daoist and that he studied science and Marxism explained a lot about Mao’s Thought on managing contradictions and how the CCP was adept at experimentations, making changes and initiating new movements. Mao’s thought is the study of contradiction as a unifying law, which is fundamentally a Daoist concept with extended Marxist dialectics. It’s possible that Mao applied the sciences, perhaps psychology and the social sciences into his Thought. From what had emerged after his study of the contradiction among the people, post Democracy Wall, Mao proceeded to turn the possible emerging rupture of discontent into two units of collectivization – in agriculture and industry– distinctly grouping the masses as useful forces of production rather than allow the malcontent to develop into anarchy. Instead, Mao embarked on a bold economic project, The Great Leap Forward. It’s known to many, excuse the anecdote, but according to some people close to him, Mao did classify some aspects of art like music, into useful or useless art. In conjunction with Marxist dialectics, Mao’s use of contradictions, and the sciences, verifies the consistency of his political commitment to improve society and the lives of every person.
When people ask and say, “What’s Chinese socialism? It’s not what Marx, Trotsky or Lenin see it,” as someone complained. To grasp socialism in the Chinese context, we need to look at the main events in Mao’s time. Even in the early days, we find many striking examples of how Mao and the CCP leaders had fully integrated rationale and practice to inclusively effect the masses and the future of China. At his juncture, one has to remember how, before the rise of Mao and communism, China was driven to the edge – on its knees, divided, bankrupt and starving, facing the abyss and a blank future while fending off dispossessions, invasions and civil war. It’s not comparable with the kind of socialism largely about workers’ rights, social welfare, housing, healthcare and pensions, like what is given in the well developed rich countries like the UK and the EU. I believe this was what Mao meant when he advocated paying attention to, “ adherence to Marxism with integration to Chinese realities.”
Briefly, in his time Mao provided free healthcare by mobilizing Barefoot Doctors to the rural areas and most people’s daily needs such as housing, utilities and food were subsidized. He also set up arbitration counselors to help people solve problems and discussion groups to engage in ironing out problems and contradictions in families and communes. To me, Mao had almost the ultimate ‘socialist’ socialism in place between 1949-56; yet, Mao referred to his contribution as ‘initial or transition to socialism.’ (science.jrank.org) In his domestic policy, Mao set out three main tasks – 1. national unity 2. Social and economic change 3. Freedom from foreign interferences, although I believe China had been sending construction workers to aid Africa in the building of roads and infrastructures from the 60s during Mao’s time.
I’m inclined to think there are more to be discovered and connected between the golden age period, The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution but they are beyond the scope of this article. Beginning from the early days of Soviet influence Mao had made a decisive change by switching from Soviet instructed industrial base to garner the support of the peasants. If we follow that line of charting the course taken by China’s great leaders – Mao, Deng and Xi, we find that they share an inherent understanding of what the people wanted and quickly adjusted or made changes to meet those needs. The MDX trio had a powerful vision mission for China and all its people but most of all, they’re geniuses with resolute conviction of their leadership and where they should lead China, applying their individual know-how to maximize the potential and materialize reforms and projects to meet the people’s needs and to make China great again. No doubt the thousands of years of history, bureaucracy and civilization are all part of the ‘Chinese characteristics.’
Modern Chinese history is wrapped within the context of ‘Socialism with Chinese characteristics’ from the revolutionary stage to the global stage. Mao, Deng and Xi are the three main proponents and each played a major and stupendous life-changing role in the modern history of China. We find Mao, a genius strategist when China needed a superman to take it out of hell; Deng, a genius economist when the Chinese were disgruntled about being poor after realizing how rich and comfortable America and the west were. Noted, they were aware of imperialism and the acquisition of (others’) wealth but equally, they (the Chinese) have industry, meritocracy and a tradition with thousands of years in commerce; in this context, Deng’s planned + market economy ensures there’s state security for private enterprises and those left out. Currently, Xi is the ultimate globalist with the revival of the Silk Road, AIIB, BRI, Petroyuan and a host of other major international projects; most of all, they’re all inclusive with a win-win policy; this bringing out explicitly, the Chinese characteristics as well. Maybe it’s Chinese dream in a community with ‘shared destiny’ and everyone can make it come true.
Chinese socialism is rooted in the way the government deals with society, politics, economics and culture. From a historic perspective, I think modern China perceive socialism as the anti-thesis of feudalism as evident in the cutting off of the queques, wearing western clothes and aiming for the benevolent welfare state. Politically, China is a public ownership country represented by the CCP, the party that brought about modern China. Its members are elected from grassroots level to the presidency; so yes, it is a democratic system. Anyone can join the communist party but to be elected into the committee, they have to work their way up so they have to be vetted and elected all the way. If there’s a guideline, it surely is, “For the people, by the people and from the people.” That cohesion and coherence surely is a very sound system of social structuring as well as selecting and electing the right leadership for the government.
Culture-wise, China is a secular country that is multi-cultural with a tolerance for multi-faith. Within the context of modern Chinese history, the value system at the core lies in the improvement of the people’s livelihood, free education for all with minimal fees at High school level, ruling by the decree of law backed by a strong military and seeking co-operation to advance peace in the world..
Xi’s Chinese Dream can be achieved with a “Two stage Plan, ” –
- building a modern socialist society – by 2020
- being a strong, prosperous, democratic , harmonious and beautiful country – by 2050.
Xi acknowledged the current contradiction where the inequality between the billionaires and the rural poor need to be seriously tackled and where respect and adherence to the law must be practiced. On democracy, I believe the laws will be more and more relaxed. As it is today, Chinese have the freedom to move about within China and do what they want without harming others. Although the social welfare system is not comparably high in monetary value to that of the west, China does have unemployment and sickness benefits, reduced healthcare for the poor, subsidized or free housing, subsidized transportation, utilities and rents, disability benefits and pensions. Xi had promised and is using ‘precision targeting’ to uplift the rest of China 300 million rural poor who live below the poverty line. Not least, I would consider ‘climate change’ as part of socialism for it affects people’s health and the environment.
Xi’s socialism with Chinese characteristics is transparent, and from what I’ve seen on You tube about the ‘Left Behind’ children and their grandparents, everyone helps in building a modern socialist society though I have no doubt there will be reforms to improve the children’s and grandparents lives in the ‘precision targetting’ to alleviate rural poverty. There is an analogy with Jesus on the cross to the Chinese concept of ‘zhi koo.’ Suffering human pains together is a spiritually bonding and purifying experience that can unite humanity but as humans seek happiness, there’s a contradiction. Does the answer lie in building a modern socialist country?
References
Did Mao Really Kill Millions in the Great Leap Forward?
Maoism – Development Of Mao’s Thought After 1949
I once read a story about the Zapatistas in Mexico. They’d originally been radical students and activists around the universities of Mexico City. When the government cracked down, they decided that the mountains of Chiapas might be a better place for them. When they got there, they started to try to teach the peasants all of the radical theories they had learned in Mexico City. This did not work so well. So they stopped doing that. Instead, they started meeting with the peasants and got them to talk about what their problems were. They listened. Then they started organizing the peasants to try to solve the problems that the peasants cared about. In this way, the organized the area and eventually declared their revolution against the Mexican state. They’ve been at least one force in people’s movements and indigenous movements ever since. And they did it by listening instead of preaching.
Socialism with Chinese characteristics seems a very obvious term. It seems to merit a response that says ‘of course, what else could it be?’ To any extent that a movement comes from the people and enpowers the people, then its going to have the characteristics of the people. That tells me that someone was wise enough to listen to the people instead of preaching theory at them. I’d say that is obvious, but today it seems that most want to preach their theory at people and don’t do so good at the listening part.
I suppose the interesting thing is that it still seems to care about the people and has not become ossified into only caring about the rich and powerful, like the once promising American experiment has become today.
Xi talks about uplifting the poor who are below the poverty line.
No wonder the west hates him.
The west believes that the only proper role for a leader is to help the richest get even richer. So the west’s propaganda channels will of course find any possible way to smear Xi. Even if Xi wants to help the Chinese rich get even richer, Xi will still be attacked and smeared. Because the west believes that Xi’s role should be to help the western rich get even richer.
@anonymous, yes principally, it’s as simple as that, made complex by other interfering systems and human variables. But somehow, I believe that with a growing awareness of moral distinctions, things will change; after all, humans have to prove they’re good.
What a nice and complete article for a starting sino-fan about so many puzzling questions about what we know already, because someone told us because someone wants to steer us in this direction and someone else in second one, and a third one in a third one… Thank you very much!
What you present looks and feels plausible and thus rather credible. For countries with „difficult languages“ (as Jochen Pleines might put it) and difficult writing systems we are all dependent on interpreters, and interprete they do, so that according to one such a country might be heaven on earth, and according to the next hell on earth, and we readers, free individuals, may now decide. Thus, speaking about problems and what they mean, how they turned up and how they were dealt with, is a first step for understanding instead of being forced to believe.
I extracted from your article (although I now do not find a one line statement for quoting) the idea that the PR of China is set up to exist and work for the interest of itself, the country and its people/s. This might sound obvious but is anything but that – a country has to be independent to care for itself, and most are not: small and weak countries are on everybody else‘s mercy, and „big and successful“ countries are only those of Angloamerica+EvilEyes+informal but real colonies like Germany – they are, like their citizens, only allowed as much power, „freedom“ and „success“ as is needed for positioning them as war machines against the enemy of the day, since 1890 or so always „Russia+“. The achieved status has to be used to make the next war, where it may well be lost, which is part of this game – Germany being a good case in point. Yes, Angela Hitler/”Merkel“ is „highly successful“ in inventing bogus war pretexts against The East and especially Russia as was her father – I hope Xi himself is wise enough to *not* see himself as a disciple of Angela Hitler.
When one compares China to other big countries like Brazil or India, one sees that a „big“ country like Brazil can be thrown back into the dust bin from which it just emerged by a handful of western steered scum politicians who have nothing but their own financial success and the political success of their angloami fürers in mind, while India seems to show best what a big country becomes when playing just „democracy“, yes, but with no national interest in mind and no political system and technique at hand which could make it go anywhere in particular.
From looking at China‘s way, as presented so well by you, one may gather that an acceptable (or even „good”) political system should have
1. a national orientation „for the people, by the people and from the people”, i.e. politicians working for their own people and not for foreign *and* enemy handlers in other countries, and then, obviously by taking into aqccount their own country‘s specifics;
2. a body of professional politicians for doing professional politics – I mentioned this point a first time many months ago at TheSeker‘s, also in a CN context, when I first (for me) discovered the fundamental difference between a „democratic“ kindergarten, where everybody-in-power has the undeniable right to decide every day again according to whatever or no criteria at all, while all common projects (and mostly „big“ and „difficult“ ones) need a professional approach which starts with the demands of this projects and not with the „ideas“ or likings of this or that old or just elected politician. While for building a bridge this is easily understood and accepted, while it is a „democratic“ no-no for building a country and its society. CN has this body, and „anyone can join the communist party but to be elected into the committee, they have to work their way up so they have to be vetted and elected all the way“ – i.e. before you are allowed to work as a professional society builder you have to learn how to professionally society build: a sound concept;
3. a self-replicating mechanism like all living beings, made for and able to achieve a normal succession of power, again „normal“ measured against the needs of professionality. All formal restrictions (like 5 year terms) are just crutches, mostly invented in a certain situation for a certain purpose, but no laws of nature or of professionalism. In big enterprises successions are routine, and in some enterprises some „patriarchs“ may reign for decades (great, if the company profits from it) while in others professionalism is searched for by frequent changes at the top which may or may not be helpful. Another independent country, the USSR, failed and finally collapsed at this point: the old guard was already too old, and Gorbachev was from the start an enemy infiltrate which then professionally did what he had been infiltrated for: killing off his own country; before that succession in the CPSU was done any rough way, did not produce geniuses, but still the professional politicians („the party“) upheld a professionally managed country until it was sabotaged out of existence from the top. This sabotaging from the top is the european feodal model, and CN will fare well as long as it doesn‘t adopt it – keeping a safety distance to the European dynasties including that of the Rotschild-Schickelgrubers („Hitler“, „Merkel“) will help.
Your article shows that CN made some things right which everybody else made wrong in one or another way. One can only wish them luck in continuing this way.
bp
@bp I ‘m afraid I don’t care for one liners or anything out to impress. Thanks for such in-depth analysis. I do think the 5 year plan is the rock of governments today though, especially in this digital age when things move at
e-speed and changes can make a life-death difference to some. Thanks for expanding the scope; I restrict my discussion to China as it’s something I know and hey, it’s complex enough, but I agree mostly with your last paragraph. The levels of complexity in the ruling powers of the hidden hierarchical west is demonic and hence, deep and so tied up with double-edged laws subject to interpretations that only the super wealthy can engage in challenging the basic human rights. We live in a very harsh time when media power itself is rocked by uncertainties as various propagandas fail and are challenged. We trust truth and beauty will prevail.Yes, to my mind, China started on a sound concept thousands of years ago as a civilisation .i.e. its culture, traditions and laws were centred humanity and the family unit and its relationship to society and empire as a basis for moral education ( Confucianism) but due to various internal and external forces, that old civilisation could break down especially when the egotisitc-selfish- greed of humans dominated over the weakness of the otherness .i.e. the selfless-self-sacrificing-altruism of humanity – the upshot was when Mao had to turn the old civilisation upside down… You might get an idea of what I meant in my 1st article on Synthesis of XJP’s Win-win Policy. I travelled and studies Indian spiritualism in the 70s… I think they need to develop further in formulating ideas in areas of morality, laws and humanitarianism… especially in the face of demographic explosions and immigrations as we have today.
> It did not then matter whether someone was a scientist, professor, artist or cleaner.
that right there was one of the central reasons why the Soviet Union collapsed, and why communism in its pure form never works. why would someone want to be a professor (which is far, far harder and takes 100 times more effort and time to achieve) when you’ll be considered the same as a cleaner?
why would anyone try to achieve anything if you aren’t going to be rewarded? it just doesn’t make any sense.
@ palmtoptiger
Depends on what one considers to be a ‘reward’. I am not saying it is so in this case, but a ‘reward’ may just be something completely different for different people.
@ Anne Teoh
Thank you for these writings. I find them fascinating and breaking open some areas that I’ve long been curious about.
@amarynth, thanks.
This right here is the typical thinking of slaves in the fascist West.Why do you work to get rewards from your owners?The results of your own actions aren’t good enough as a ‘reward’?Why would a professor want to be higher than a cleaner?Both serve important functions in society and between the two, the cleaner is actually more essential.Why is the measure of importance of an act the amount of hardship,amount of effort and time spent on said act instead of the result of said act?Is the West made up of masochists who derive their sense of value and importance from how miserable they make themselves and each other?
Why would anyone achieve anything if they aren’t rewarded by their owners?Passion because they love their achievement/work, self-improvement, altruistic reasons and in a communal sense the benefit it brings to the community that one is a part of – ie: the cleaner keeps the building clean and the scientist, professor and artist along with the cleaner himself benefits from having a clean building/environment, the scientist invents things useful to all four, the professor teaches the children of all four, the artist creates things aesthetically pleasing to all four and thus all four benefit from/are rewarded by each other’s and their own work.This is not good enough for you?Need a head-pat and some pieces of paper(more head-pats and pieces of paper if you’re a professor instead of a cleaner, of course) from someone in a superior position to you to act in your own self-interest?Weird and I don’t even consider myself a communist.
@anon35643534 Several good analogies… what have we become today… all values are subjective except that of love, doing good to others and honesty. The whole hierarchy of wealth and power dominated structure breeds nothing but narcissism and evil which have so overpowered basic human sensitivity in the forms of politics, arts and most disciplines that we have to resort to keep explaining like the opening each layer of the onion.
The ‘reward’ for doing something, is doing it
The professor loves her or his work ….. would they want to do anything else?
The cleaner is perhaps more necessary in an immediate sense than a professor.
We are all born with different intelligence and abilities. If we use what we are born with to contribute to society, why should there be a difference between a cleaner and a worker.
I know a few Professors ….. including a few from Chinese universities …… they all readily admit the cleaner’s job is more important ….. in an immediate sense
The sure sign of high intelligence, whether you are a professor or cleaner, is humility ….. knowing that you know very little
Had a call from a friend in China. so distracted
… between cleaner and a professor
@Graeme haha , indeed we live in a strange civilisation, or among strange civilisations today; I guess when a civilisation loses its virtues to mercantilism, it turns feudal ad atet’s when a revolution is called for. At such times, we examine the true values of cleaners versus professors… one absolute unconditional argument is why should cleaners be debased in status and have their pay so marginalised when what they doing for society is so pro-life and civilising? If we follow Mao dialectics, we’d get amazing results in working out the contradictions. Thanks for highlighting this lost method today.
@palmtoptiger you’ve got a few responses regarding rewards. Part of the ancient Confucian teaching asked children as young as 6 to consider, “What is human nature.”?
I do believe without this person Mao would’ve gotten very little done.
Zhou Enlai
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhou_Enlai
I do believe China is on the right track for it’s citizens.
@jo6pac, In some ways… Zhou Enlai was a most well-tempered being and helped Mao and the team in smoothing out some very harsh occasions… I think while we respect the genius and competence of solo leaderships, we should bear in mind that teamwork is the grit and rock behind every success.
The following account can help explain that successful evolution to modern China.
Edgar Snow wrote first-hand accounts of Mao’s struggle to transition a China from warlords/serfs stuck with foreign occupiers to a self-determined sovereign country.
Snow’s Journey To The Beginning, wherein he relates his insight that which seems to enable that transition in the midst of famine and helplessness.
Snow has travelled to the remote end of the railway line with Washington Wu, a government official and translator who had studied in America. They are shocked by scenes of mass death and starvation and hopelessness in northwest China. Snow recalls this dialog:
[ Wu-]– “Terrible! Terrible!” he suddenly muttered one day when we discussed what we had seen. “I had been in America so many years I forgot about things like this. What a miserable , miserable country our China is!”
[Snow]– I felt a bond of sympathy with Wu when I first I heard him concede some evil in China apart from the sins of the white imperialists. His facade of arrogance and false pride cracked. There was a new spirit of protest against injustice in his voice, a new sense of humility and personal responsibility.
[Wu]–“We must, we must do something to save China–quickly”, he said. “But how?”
[Snow]–“There you sit with 30 centuries of experience behind you,” said I. “As an American, I can trace my origins a few generations. How can I answer that question for China!”
[Wu]–“There has to be a new birth,” he said thoughtfully. “It can only come out of our own body–the body of our own history.”
[Snow]–Wu was silent for a long time, locked by his thoughts, as I was by mine.
Shortly after that incident, Snow learned of a Mao Zedong character leading a small army of rebellion. This becomes Snow’s Red Star Over China, in which Snow sneaks thru enemy lines to meet Mao in his Baoan cave, July 1937 .
And by the way, consider this: At the end of World War 1, the secret Peace Treaty of Versailles awarded the former German territorial colony on China’s coast to Japan. Thus, protests and riots began in China to prevent such from happening. One of the student leaders was named Mao Zedong! [This related by American journalist George Seldes who knew the truth of how the “secret” terms were scooped and made public, so that the U S Senate refused to ratify it. [Thanks to the representative from China .] See Seldes’ Even The Gods Can’t Change History.
@Roger the work of men should not be interrelated as matters of fate and given to destiny. Mao was amazing and so were the many westerners – mainly Norman Bethune, Israel Epstein, Edgar Snow ( and Helen Snow) etc… and prior to them too… I see modern Chinese history (and Russian) as an international movement too… so I’m at ease with The Silk Road, BRI, AIIB etc Let those ho do not throw stones…
I read the autobiography of Han Suyin, the Chinese author (her first work of notariety was “A Many Splendored Thing”–yup, that very one you may recall as a song and a movie) who was born in China of a Chinese father and a Belgian mother who met when they were teenagers in Belgium where he was an engineering student in ~1916. Their return to China was a disaster when what he had described to his new wife as the wonders and beauty of China turned out to be a major trauma for Han Suyin’s very bourgeoise mother. HS was a very brilliant woman who loved China and who spent her whole life in Southeast Asia, going into and out of China beginning in the early 50s, and witnessed the “Let A Hundred Flowers Bloom,” “The Great Leap” and the “Cultural Revolution” campaigns. What’s valuable to me is that she spoke Chinese, English and French and reported from ground level what she saw and felt. She met Chou Enlai (now Zhou Enlai), Nehru, Sukarno, Edgar Snow, etc etc, so she had a view from the top and from the bottom (she could walk the streets of China and pass as a native). Her views changed as she witnessed the results, good and sometimes very bad, of what she witnessed.
There may be a better way for non-Chinese to get a genuine glimpse of 20th Chinese experience, but I haven’t been exposed to it yet.
Autobiographical works
The Crippled Tree (1965) – covers China and her and her family’s life from 1885 to 1928
A Mortal Flower (1966) – covers the years 1928–38
Birdless Summer (1968) – covers the years 1938–48
My House Has Two Doors (1980) – covers the years 1949–79 – split into two when released as paperback in 1982, with the second part called Phoenix Harvest
Wind in My Sleeve (1992) – covers the years 1977–91
A Share of Loving (1987) – a more personal autobiography about Han Suyin, her Indian husband Vincent and Vincent’s family[4]
Fleur de soleil – Histoire de ma vie (1988) – French only: Flower of sun – The story about my life
Historical studies
China in the Year 2001 (1967)
Asia Today: Two Outlooks (1969)
The Morning Deluge: Mao Tsetung and the Chinese Revolution 1893–1954 (1972)
Lhasa, the Open City (1976)
Wind in the Tower: Mao Tsetung and the Chinese Revolution, 1949–1965 (1976)
China 1890–1938: From the Warlords to World War (1989; historical photo-reportage)
Eldest Son: Zhou Enlai and the Making of Modern China (1994)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Suyin#Autobiographical_works
@pogohere Han Saying was bred in China. I had contacts with her in her late years; she loved China ardently and was well aware of the propaganda of anti-China wreckersand their mission to paint it black and destabilise the country. Before you make any conclusive statements, do provide evidence as there’s very sensitive radar alert for bias and fake news.
Capitalist hallmarks such as class society, commodity production, profit motive, exploitation of wage labour, markets, etc., exist in China as they do worldwide. Further evidence abounds. In an article titled ‘Always Stay Professional’. Inside China’s Booming Butler Schools, Nothing But the Best Will Do’ (Time, 1 November, 2017)we learn that some of China’s 1,590,000 millionaires wish to live the life of Riley Downtown Abbey style! ‘Students pay 50,000 rmb ($7,500) for a six-week course on food presentation, how to iron shirts the proper way, and maintaining serene decorum at all times…. Students learn how to choose fine wine but also good Chinese liquor, teach tai chi, perform a tea ceremony and caddy on the golf course. For many, it’s another world.’ Indeed. ‘…15-hour days and endless drilling. How to clean a toilet, iron a tablecloth, use tape-measures and plastic blocks to get table placings perfectly aligned. It’s a regimen of burns, blisters and bottomless cups of coffee’. We should instead be inspired by the Ju/’hoansi people who work only 15 hours a week.
Red Robbo, China has diversified so much which is frustrating on the surface level, yet the point is that people are free to be what they want to do with their lives. Deng Xiao Ping brought about the mixed economy as there was much evidence that many Chinese , due to their historical background as traders and merchants, were sick of left wing socialism and wanted to do business and create a more competitive world. I knew of students who blamed Mao for making them poor ( blamers have no sense of otherness or altruism) and journalists who joked at ’empty hotels’ when there was 90% vacancy for since they’re not making anything out of service, they couldn’t be bothered to serve – this attitude was quite endemic and journalists I met laughed about ‘no place left’ at restaurants, tourist companies and hotels. However, I also heard much from Youtube today about how many foreigners choose to go to China to teach English for 16 hours a week with good pay and long holidays in China today. My conclusion is China is about what people want and it’s about a government that listens and tries to be a god government in honest ways except for the lunch of corrupted badies.. It’s quite impossible to please everyone of course so while some complain about law breakers and the need of regulatory bodies, others want freedom, strict laws and so on… which is why many foreigners say on Youtube, “This only happens in China; only in China!”
‘All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others,’ an apposite description of state capitalist China which has over 100 billionaires. Together they have wealth equal to twice Ireland’s GDP! According to a Peking University report from 2016, the income disparity is getting worse with the top 1 percent owning a third of the country’s wealth and the bottom 25 percent of the population just 1 percent. The 99% never voted for this!
@Red Robbo – Western capitalism and “socialism with Chinese characteristics” both utilize market economy to create wealth. In both systems, disproportionate amounts of the wealth end up in the hands of a few oligarchs.
But there is one key difference: In the West, the politicians obey the oligarchs; in China, the oligarchs obey the politicians, specifically the CCP. In about 20-30 years, we will know which of these two systems delivers better quality of life for most people. The economic and social advancement of China over the past forty years suggests that it will be the Chinese one.
Of course, it is also possible that the Chinese oligarchs succeed in subverting the rule of the CCP and turn China into yet another neo-liberal oligarchy similar to what exists now in the US and other “developed” Western countries. We will see.
China gov will never be subverted by oligarchs, as the leaders are elected from the bottom, the best proven one.
The leaders observed all oligarchs closely, only those who are patriotic to country & people will be allowed to rise, given opportunities & support, to get even more influential.
At some point, these oligarchs will be incorporated into the leadership team to help chart the country future, a common destiny. Juz look at people like Ma Yun of Alibaba.
Whereas anyone /oligarch who try to do harm to country interest will be brougt down in full force of state organs. No oligarchs can fight with a state. Wada may be one good example, 2nd wealthiest? was dismantled after its boss was caught tried to put own interest above country.
Chinese value is traditionally putting country, society & family above self. And men are truly respected by his peers & people only he has such selfless quality (无我), Im for everyone, Everyone is for me (我为人人，人人为我。).
This is what make a family, ethnic, tribe, nation & country strong & united, surpassing the West value of individualism.
““socialism with Chinese characteristics.” more like “socialism with Chinese capitalist characteristics.”
One really has to go there to know about China, but you only need a couple of days to know about the real China, very little is hidden.
Almost anyone can get a 5 day shopping Visa at the Shenzhen Border Crossing at the end of the MTR railway line to/from Hong Kong Central. Just ask any of the Police,”Shopping Visa?” The only prerequisite is a current valid passport and 168RMB, they do accept Hong Kong $. See here: https://www.tripadvisor.com/Travel-g294217-c125197/Hong-Kong:China:Day.Trip.To.Shenzhen.Mainland.China.html
If you get a flight to Hainan Island you can get a 30 Day Visa On Arrival, the only place to get such a visa on arrival in China. See here: http://www.explorehainan.com/en/plan/visas.shtml
Very few Chinese ever say “nee how” so don’t bother to learn that. They like to say,”Hi”.
@ersi, I’ve travelled China and worked there. Generalisations just don’t work on anything. Chinese say ‘ni hao’ and I’d never met one who said, ‘hi.’ Thanks for visa info. That’s very useful for those who love to see China. Of course, it’s a wise move as China makes most things in the worl, and in the light of the recent uS tariffs, that’s real smart ; but of course, China made these changes for our convenience as they were made before the new tariffs were set out.
Is this only for visitors to Shenzhen? Does every entry point have its own visa regime (Shenzhen, Hainan)? What about going from Macau to Zhuhai+?
“Some China hands, more sympathetic to China, compared Xi with Lee Kuan Yew and Angela Merkel, both highly successful and with very long tenures as PM.”
China leaders have been always watching LKY closely how he charted his own country destiny with a blend of West capitalism & Chinese Confucianism socialism, often against West hubris value, & been criticized as human rights violating dictator in his iron fist ruling.
LKY had certainly left some strong impression in Deng XP during Deng first visit to Spore, to observe how a Chinese majority small country can fare as well as West developed country, if not better.
LKY even encouraged Deng: We are only descendants of your peasants, you are the real elites. What we can achieve, sure China can do better. Since, China has continuously sending wave of officials to study & trained in Spore, borrowing its successful proven model in every area to fast track developed China till now.
So equating Chinese leaders to LKY who dare to dream & charted their own destiny regardless of false sense of West supremacy is quite appropriate. But not Germany Merkel, she is simply a hamstrung US Anglozionist puppet selling out Germany, such as flooding with refugees insane policy. All democracy countries are subjected to FUKUS subversion to influence voting. Only China is free from FUKUS hand, hence the wrath & demonization.
“’zhi koo’ meaning ‘eat bitter’ and is the lingua franca for revolution and progressive reforms’ ”
While i enjoy reading your article, there may be some words seem not rightly pronounced. The correct hanyupingyin for 吃苦 is “chi ku”, not zhi koo– 制苦means making hardship，actually koo has no equivalent han character.
吃苦 directly translated to eat bitter hold its profound meaning, but is quite puzzling for non Chinese. It may be easier to understand for Lao Wai 老外with “Bearing Hardship“.