[Far-Right Sage]

I've never been a fan of the PRC (I'm far from a Sinophile in general), not when it was actually Maoist and Communist and not now, but that "massacre" was a complete joke. That's what they should be condemned for? Give it another decade or so and no one will even be discussing it.

[Zenno]

I am saying authoritarian nationalist (meaning, first and foremost acting in the interests of the nation) rule is better than liberal "democracy" where the country disintegrates, living standards drop, civil war wreaks havoc, killing thousands to hundreds of thousands, and the nation's wealth is robbed by a small minority, as was the case in all transitions from large, multi-national "totalitarian communist" countries to liberalism (USSR, Yugoslavia). If China did not put an end to the 1989 protests with force, the chance of them toppling the regime would have been greater and the disasters following such an event very possible indeed.

I get your point. Still, China is not Russia and Russia is not exactly a liberal democracy. How would the country have disintegrated? I really can't see it. Even with the demonstrations, there was no force to challenge the PLA. Even if Tibet or the autonomous regions had broken away, that would not have been a catastrophe. In population and economic terms, these regions are of minor interest. Without these regions, repression in China would be less. The Chinese could concentrate on developing the homeland. Could the Kuomintang have intervened? Hardly! Even if they had been that crazy, the US wouldn't have let them. Would a smaller more democratic China be less successful economically? I don't think so. It would basically have developed along the same lines, just like Korea and Japan. It would moreover fit more easily into the international community without all that belligerence we have seen in recent years. Anyways, if your theory is correct and such regimes always break up in a big bang, then that could be still ahead of us.

[Potemkin]

"It is a general truism of this world that anything long divided will surely unite, and anything long united will surely divide." - Luo Guanzhong, Romance of the Three Kingdoms

[Zenno]

Well, we are back to the Yin/Yang philosophy then. I guess it must apply to affairs of state as it applies to matters of the heart. Just have to wait for the great Yang to create the great Yin by dividing itself.

[Andrea_Chenier]

Liao Yiwu is the typical person whom the liberal-democratic media, pseudo-intellectuals and politicians worship. Hence, someone you can't take seriously. Liao recently criticized the great author Mo Yan, the newest literary nobel, because he is too "close" to the chinese state. According to Liao, only dissidents deserve to receive prizes. The fact that Liao is a nobody who only got to fame due to his "rebellion against authoritarian government"- attitude (i.e. living in Germany and talking to magazines which love to hear anti chinese/anti communist slogans), while Mo Yan is a masterful writer, praised by many important figures of the literary world, doesn't play an important role in Liao's logic.

[Far-Right Sage]

Andrea, that is the first post you have authored with which I sincerely and deeply agree. Keep it up.

The same extends to the Burmese dissident media personalities who have a burning hatred for the Burmese elite, but seemingly no problem with cozying up to the Western elite. It's just shameful.

[Igor Antunov]

Liao Yiwu is the typical person whom the liberal-democratic media, pseudo-intellectuals and politicians worship. Hence, someone you can't take seriously. Liao recently criticized the great author Mo Yan, the newest literary nobel, because he is too "close" to the chinese state. According to Liao, only dissidents deserve to receive prizes. The fact that Liao is a nobody who only got to fame due to his "rebellion against authoritarian government"- attitude (i.e. living in Germany and talking to magazines which love to hear anti chinese/anti communist slogans), while Mo Yan is a masterful writer, praised by many important figures of the literary world, doesn't play an important role in Liao's logic.

Well said.

[jaytrance]

I get your point. Still, China is not Russia and Russia is not exactly a liberal democracy. How would the country have disintegrated? I really can't see it. Even with the demonstrations, there was no force to challenge the PLA. Even if Tibet or the autonomous regions had broken away, that would not have been a catastrophe. In population and economic terms, these regions are of minor interest. Without these regions, repression in China would be less. The Chinese could concentrate on developing the homeland. Could the Kuomintang have intervened? Hardly! Even if they had been that crazy, the US wouldn't have let them. Would a smaller more democratic China be less successful economically? I don't think so. It would basically have developed along the same lines, just like Korea and Japan. It would moreover fit more easily into the international community without all that belligerence we have seen in recent years. Anyways, if your theory is correct and such regimes always break up in a big bang, then that could be still ahead of us.

If democracy means our government must let the autonomous regions break away, I'm sure thoese died in the square will stand up and say 'fuck the democracy, who need it'.