Without  having read Rightful Resistance in Rural China I feel like I missing some key arguments that this article presents. From my understanding the difference between regular resistance and rightful resistance is rightful resistors challenge problems head on like: illegal extractions, rigged elections or corrupt dealers, villagers deploying the policies, and laws and commitments. In order for something to be considered a rightful resistance protest it must have four attributes: it must be operated near the boundary of authorized channels, employ the rhetoric and commitment of the powerful to the curb to exercise power, be hinged on locating and exploiting divisions within the state, and rely on mobilizing support from the community.  However, rightful resistors in China have been criticized for lacking peasantness, shortchanging history and culture, focusing on elite allies and one pattern of protests, and being overly rationalist, state centric, and caught  in the developmental thinking.

It seems like most of the criticisms  of the rightful resistors can be evaluated from two different angles that  makes it hard to determine a correct answer, depending on who you ask, or what the study is will depend on the result. Personally it seems like  the  rightful resistors does lack peasantness, the reason I say this is because many of the issues being protested against, or not being protests against, but should be affect the peasants the most. If the peasants are not the main ones protesting and apart of this group I am not sure that I understand who composes the majority of this group. On the issue of state centeredness and the Chinese State I agree that in China it appears officials and those in power are able to make the change that are needed and others will be willing to follow, but at the same  time i see the point that protestors do push the boundaries in order to create opportunities. I feel like this is challenging unless it  is a mass movement though, just because the Chinese government has such a low tolerance for anything anti-Communist party and anti-central Chinese government. It does not seem like the questions being asked: sincere or strategic?, reactive or proactive?, developmental thinking?, and rights consciousness or rules consciousness? are good questions to ask or make for arguments on either side because there is evidence to make the case for both and it seems like rightful resistors are made up of a little of all of things. The universal framework aspect of the article was interesting, whether of not all the elements are true I am not positive, but  it all sounds good.

China did not used to think of NGO’s highly and their definition of civil society would not have been correct almost no matter who you talked you. I question if the UN’s Fourth World Conference was not held in Beijing would China ever have developed in the realm of NGOs. This whole article is written on the premise that civil society is developed on the social phenomenon that comprises connotation, essence and extension . That civil societies are an associational life style that will lead to the pursuit of good society and citizens and become a major advocate for democracy and public rights. The contradictory part as mentioned by Marry Gallagher is that not everyone has the same definition of civil society and what the comprises.

Marry also brings up what I believe to be a very good point that it seems like too much emphasis is being placed on the development of NGOs and how it going to produce this euphoric civil society. There are still problems with the development of Civil Society in China, yet he only paints a picture of three different positive paths forward. I would hope that whatever changes in China will be positive and lead towards democracy and the ideal Civil society, but I feel it it very plausible that could end up on the opposite end like Weimar Germany that turned into the Nazi Party. The only reason I see this as an option is because it stemmed from weak political institutionalization and not trusting their government. Well, these are issues that China has as well, so I think she  is right when that if NGOs and civil society has any chance of a healthy development in China the expectations need to be lowered.

The way the chapter started off  with the “Anticorruption Since the Reform and Opening Up” I got  the sense that the campaign has been going on for a long time (60 years), but it had made  a lot of  head way, reform, and change in China. In those 60 years eduction, institutionalization, supervision, reform, rectification, and punishment were all key focuses of this movement and a lot of resources were being implemented  to work on these things. It named a lot of different organizations that were dedicated to specific areas of reform. For example, the National Bureau of Corruption Prevention that worked towards the professionalization of China’s corruption prevention and punishment efforts. It talks about the treaties it has entered with different countries for their cooperation in their fight against cooperation. It refers to the more then 2.9 million cases registered and “being investigated or prosecuted for corruption”. So  all of this put the the idea in my head China was/is ay better off, but this is not true. In the  “Effectiveness of China’s Existing Clean-Government System” we see that not  only is there still mass amount of corruption, but there is corruption within the campaign to fight corruption. The checks on corruption of leading a party and government are weak, the judiciary system is corrupt, unhealthy government extravagances have gone unchecked, legalizing exclusive privileges to civil servants, not punishing those found to be corrupt, and the punishments being taken care of inside the party instead of the legal system are all problems that are occurring, or worsening. Then he gives a long list of things that need to change in order for there to be organizational effectiveness and rule effectiveness.  The National Integrity System that supposedly has made great transformation and is a representation of transition and hybridization still faces many barriers itself: excessive concentration of power, lack of an effective administration system, no checks and balances, lack of protection of the press, and the law and democracy is still underdeveloped.

Melanie Manion agreed with He Zengke’s analysis . She emphasized the unevenness of enforcement priorities and substitution of party penalties for criminal punishment as two of her main focuses of the problem. In my opinion, it seems very unlikely they would  be able to solve any of these problems anytime soon. It is very mind blowing at how many different problems lie in the heart of China’s government and yet it is still somewhat functioning. With as many problems as it appears to have I would think that China would perform way worse. I feel like Zengke offers an over simplistic solution. I agree the problem is within the institution, and he states we need to restructure governance which I also agree with, but the  manner in which he proposes to do this does not seem like  it would completely fix the institutional problem. My thing  is, is it possible to restructure the China’s government and get rid of the corruption? I question this so heavily because they have been trying for 60 years and even though there is progress there has also been added corruption through the campaign.

I could never live in Datong it looked so run down and polluted. I cannot believe that people’s houses are being demolished while they are still living in it. I know Mayor Geng Yangbo, wants to reform city and bring more people, but it does not seem like relocating and evicting people that have been living in the same place for 30 years  is the way to go. Especially when families are being put on 3 year long waiting lists, but don’t have housing in the mean time. I hate how forced demolition is illegal and yet they are still kicking people out of their homes and evicting them. I liked the quote from the resident  of Datong that said, “Let the Rich guys live, We are not living “. It seems absurd that people love the same mayor that  is kicking everyone out of their homes so much. I know he goes around signing papers giving people whatever they want, but considering he is not the one that actually deals with the relocating, people being beating, or peoples  houses being demolished while in it, it appears that these would turn into empty promises. And the mayor from the other side feels like people aren’t doing their jobs and he is ready to fire anyone.

I know Geng Yangbo wants to be better then the U.S. and that he wants a cultural renaissance, but I feel like this is not the way to do it. It seems like it would  be hard to appreciate a cultural revolution that is tainted by so much corruption and discontent throughout all the common people.

Instead of racial discrimination, like back in the day in the U.S. they have class discrimination. So the people want their schools to be segregated. The Urban people don’t want all the farmers and their children that are moving to go to the same school. I don’t understand what is so different about the up bringing of an urban vs. farmer child that would make it so they would need separate schools, but that is how they felt.

I thought this presentation was very eye opening. I had no clue that originally China was ahead in the Science  and technology. It is a great question, why didn’t China produce the science Revolution when they were so far ahead? Of the potential reasons: confucianism, imperial government, chinese language, geography, and peace theory I feel like I would find the imperial government option to be the most likely option. I feel like the population would not be motivated to invent, or improve because when they do it would not benefit them in a positive way. I would not want to make an invention that could improve my agricultural production if in the end that means my quota will rise and I will be expected to produce more. When I don’t produce more then the rest of society then I would be punished. I do not know anyone that would want to be put that in that situation.

The student led movement was ver concerning. I Know students punishing, beating, and killing their teachers would never fly in the U.S. or most other industrialized countries. If I were a teacher, or in the education industry I would either want to switch professions or leave the country. I know during this era there is a an extreme bias against education and intellects, but I feel that in general they are not valued. Imagine telling someone in the U.S. that a skilled labor worker could make more then an engineer, or something like that. Everyone would not understand. We put those that are intellectually on a higher level and those that create things in a higher social class. During the reform era in China I quote,”scientist and engineers are part of the working class.” My question is without a respect for education and science will China ever experience a real science revolution?

If I were in China, right now would be my prime time to either be recruited by the CCP, or try and apply for  CCP membership. I try and put myself in the shoes of a college student in China and think if I would want to be apart of the CCP. The easy answer would just to say of course not, but the truth is actually thinking about it I think that I would. I feel like your opportunity to live a better life is much greater when you join the party. Plus since the party objectives have changed and the CCP is more focused on economic development and they want he best of the best I would be less likely to object to the parties objectives. On the other hand, most the benefits of the CCP membership are money and career oriented and I do not know how important that would  be to me. Maybe since it is an expanding market, I would get a job in the non-state sector. I do have to say that I like how the CCP members are more committed to a life of  public service. Even thought  it might be for show you cant fake giving your time, money, or goods so that is something I would want  to apart of.

One thing I do not understand how Chinese people can just change the definition of democracy to satisfy their beliefs. According to Merriam-Webster, a democracy is “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.” The Chinese measure the level of democracy in their society base doff personal freedom, economic opportunity, or leaders who govern in the public interest. Based off their definition most Chinese people are satisfied with their levels of democracy. Maybe I am missing something, but it seems like they are missing a lot of aspects of their own definition of democracy.