Just got out of the talk by Professor Murphree, and I got to say it was enlightening to say the least when discussing the reasoning behind the economic and social structure in China.

He began the discussion by outlying the nature of China’s ultramodern versus ultra traditional systems that can be literally viewed in many of the cities within the state. Chinese economics are locally based which tends to create problems such as duplication of investment and short terminism.

It’s intriguing, because China’s past is filled with innovation and technology (such as gun powder, printing, methods of telling time via the stars and other celestial bodies, to name a few), but the question rises why China didn’t surpass the west in modern science and technology? There are several theories outlined, including Confucianism, Imperial Government, Chinese language (as a barrier), Geography, and most intriguing Peace Theory which claims that because China lived in relative peace until the 19th century, there was little incentive to innovate or produce technology on a massive scale, however Europe since the medieval ages has been consistently under existential threats of various kinds pushing it to modernize at a more rapid pace, eventually overtaking and surpassing the Chinese. Starting in the 19th century there was numerous pushes towards Chinese modernization, initially beginning with ideas that called for upheaval of western influence, maintaining Chinese traditions while utilizing the knowledge and technologies produced by the Western powers. These didn’t work so well, and eventually a clash between two western systems of government emerged, nationalism vs. communism. As we al know communism eventually emerged the victor, and proceeded to remake the identity of the Chinese as a people and a state.

Socialist science and technology (the soviet system) took hold in the 1950-1966, which initiated a comprehensive economic planning, reorganization of universities where education was the only thing allowed, not innovation or the aquiring of new knowledge. Instead, the Chinese Academy of Sciences was developed and controlled by the government. This made it very efficient for the Chinese to develop one thing at a time, (such as nuclear weapons), but caused them to spend literally all of their readiness and procurement budget in producing these short term goals.  In 1966, Mao initiated the cultural revolution, which threw science, knowledge and growth of any kind into an all new low. Scientists were the lowest class of society, students executed professors, universities were closed for a decade. It was complete shit.

Then thank goodness, the Reform era came along under Xiping, which refunded the CAS, brought the scientists and engineers up to the working class which allowed them to work and innovate freely, Reintigration of R and D into universities were established. Foreign collaboration occurred, and a more open market was allowed. This is still tricky though for the Chinese government however in regards to who should control the economy. Should it be the state, or the market? Every now and again it sways one way or the other, the party still controls the government, so whatever the party morphs into in the next decade or so will be very influential in what the Chinese economic system will lol like. The new era (today) is characterized by widespread industrial parked, massive R and D, being second only to the United States, Technology standards are changing and industrial reforms are occurring (although still very central and state owned). Attempts to establish a taxation system that awards innovation of the companies in China.

In Chapter eight, I learned about the reformation of state and local governments in China. Traditionally, China has been viewed as a unitary system, with a strong central government having great involvement even at the local levels. However, in recent years reformation has become increasingly present, driven primarily by academic scholars of law and politics. Currently, a hybrid form of government appears to making a surge forward in China’s modern politics. The unitary system of government in China only pertains to the actual governance/political system, and fails to encompass the complexity involved in the local governments and the economics the government is involved in. In a way, China has developed a sort of democratic/authoritarian hybrid regime where members of the Party can be chosen by fellow members to serve in the government. At the local levels, more representative/democratic forms are more present, and have a minor impact on the people in China. In the end, the State Government in China still is making the decisions with the mindset that it will be the best for the majority of the people (its very utilitarian in a sense). This decision is then passed down to the respective government cadres (who are either members of the CCP or supporters of the CCP), who then work to implement the policy decisions by the government amongst the people in China. It is a top-down system of government that is quite foreign to the Western states (such as the USA, UK or Australia) who implement bottom-up democratic systems of government where the people generally choose what they feel is best for them voiced in the legislature through elected officials. While China has a government that might not be democratic in the western sense, it does utilize a system that is very complex, yet efficient at passing policy and various regulations.

Just finished watching Mao’s bloody revolution video. I have to say, it is intriguing to witness through video the remaking of Chinese culture from the past century. Mixed with a beginning of imperialists, with a movement towards a republic with a break out of civil war, China has seen numerous conflicts that I think ultimately influenced the current political environment in China today.

The cultural revolution and great leap “forward” were the most intriguing aspects to Mao’s reign over the Chinese people. The emphasis of remaking the culture of the Chinese people was widespread. It enforced a radicalized version of Communism throughout the country, that ultimately reinforced practically religious loyalty to Mao, so much so that the people were constantly overthrowing party leaders while maintaining their reverence for Mao. In the process of this “purge”, religions both traditionally Chinese and foreign alike were thrown out of the communist state, and in its place was a manufactured worship of Mao himself. This was interesting too as millions upon millions of people died either from persecution, purge or famine, which were truly a direct result of Mao’s failure in leadership. Yet still the people believed in him, still they followed him, and still they obeyed his word as though it were gospel.

It is important to note that the Chinese people, even today, revere Mao as a leader who stood against the corruption of the west and stood up for Chinese exceptionalism. However, while China has maintained this reverence, the government has eased up quite a bit on traditional communist values. This has resulted in a strange type of Authoritarian Capitalism with strong evidence of communistic principles and values still being maintained.

China has learned from its past, however they are unapologetic it would seem for the past, choosing instead not to study its most recent history, at least not the disastrous pieces of history.

By far, China has a very unique and complex system of politics that have been in rapid change for the last 100 years. It is crucial to understand the concepts of the Chinese political history as it will help in the further study of Chinese politics in the present day.

Today I witnessed a speech given by the President of the Peoples Republic of China, and I have got to say I found it kind of unnerving the context many of the Presidents words were used in building up a unity and support for the Communist Party and agenda.

In a way, it seemed as though he was attempting to rally the people around the party, making it seem as though everyone was a big family, where hard work and loyalty are the keys to success in the Chinese land. It was really in depth, discussing topics such as not being pushed around by outside influence (which I would assume is the US), asserting their superiority and imparting their “wisdom” to the G-20, which they apparently hosted in 2016.

They talked about their economic plans, using the traditional communist “5 year plan” format, which lays out the goals and ambitions behind their economic actions. Furthermore he briefly discussed how great their environmental engineering was becoming, and how happy the people were because of it.

He also made a quick note that in the coming year that those who failed to stand with the Chinese people and the Communist Party would be faced with retaliation. I wonder, could this potentially be a foreshadowing of an increase in repression and a limitation in democratic sympathizers in the State? Only time will tell…