Actually, there was a specific policy decision by the Chinese government after Tiananmen Square: to appease the masses via capitalism in order to stay in power. China was far closer to revolution than most people in the West realize. Though widely reported in the West to be a student protest, Tiananmen Square actually involved weeks of protests where an estimated 10% of Beijing's population was involved. The army was actually sent in to stop the protests weeks before June 3 with orders not to shoot, but were engulfed by the citizens, unable to reach the Square, and forced to turn back ( very humiliating for a police state ). The leadesrhip realized they were on the brink at this point, and the second time around, 300,000 troops were told to clear the square at all costs and were not deterred. Most of the deaths weren't of the mainly rich students of elite professors at Beijing University ( who were largely spared ), but of the rank-and-file citizens who tried to blockade the army the second time around. ( I didn't know much about June 4 until I saw PBS Frontline's excellent documentary called "Tank Man", you can view it online:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/vi ew/
===
Drawing on interviews with Chinese and Western eyewitnesses, Thomas recounts the amazing events of the spring of 1989, when a student protest that began in Tiananmen Square, the symbolic central space of the nation, spread throughout much of the rest of China. Several weeks later, when the government sent in the army to end the demonstrations, the citizens of Beijing poured into the streets in support of the students. "You had a million people on the street, minimum.... That was unprecedented, definitely in modern Chinese post-revolutionary history," says John Pomfret, who was in Beijing at the time, reporting for the Associated Press.
===
The point is that Beijing appeared to be on the brink of mass revolution, hardly apathetic to the government. Why the change now? Shortly after June 4th, Deng Xiaoping enacted several economic reforms effectively moving China towards a free market economy.
Today, the masses of farmers/peasants in the countryside are pissed at hell over the government / drawing the short end of globalization but have no voice, no way to organize. But the middle class in the cities have been appeased by capitalism, just as Deng had hoped. They've seen their standard of living---and most importantly, the perception of upward mobility---skyrocket beyond imagination. Why would they want to rock the boat now? It's hard to imagine a revolution happening without the support of the middle class in the cities.
But, as time goes on, it may become increasingly difficult for the Party to maintain its identity while appeasing the voracious appetite of yuppiedom. In the early going, market reform could be largely separated from political reform, but as the standard of living rises, we get into areas that require political/legal reform in order to keep the foreign investment pouring in: in particular, clamping down on corruption, transparency of the law and trust in the legal system, removal of the fat-cat state industries that line the Party member's pockets. What I wonder is, if the Party manages to "stay in power" by ceding to these reforms, will it even look anything like the police state / bad-guy government we in the West love to hate? Perhaps Singapore provides a vision of what such a government may look like.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, there was a specific policy decision by the Chinese government after Tiananmen Square: to appease the masses via capitalism in order to stay in power. China was far closer to revolution than most people in the West realize. Though widely reported in the West to be a student protest, Tiananmen Square actually involved weeks of protests where an estimated 10% of Beijing's population was involved. The army was actually sent in to stop the protests weeks before June 3 with orders not to shoot, but were engulfed by the citizens, unable to reach the Square, and forced to turn back ( very humiliating for a police state ). The leadesrhip realized they were on the brink at this point, and the second time around, 300,000 troops were told to clear the square at all costs and were not deterred. Most of the deaths weren't of the mainly rich students of elite professors at Beijing University ( who were largely spared ), but of the rank-and-file citizens who tried to blockade the army the second time around. ( I didn't know much about June 4 until I saw PBS Frontline's excellent documentary called "Tank Man", you can view it online: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/vi ew/
===
Drawing on interviews with Chinese and Western eyewitnesses, Thomas recounts the amazing events of the spring of 1989, when a student protest that began in Tiananmen Square, the symbolic central space of the nation, spread throughout much of the rest of China. Several weeks later, when the government sent in the army to end the demonstrations, the citizens of Beijing poured into the streets in support of the students. "You had a million people on the street, minimum. ... That was unprecedented, definitely in modern Chinese post-revolutionary history," says John Pomfret, who was in Beijing at the time, reporting for the Associated Press.
===
The point is that Beijing appeared to be on the brink of mass revolution, hardly apathetic to the government. Why the change now? Shortly after June 4th, Deng Xiaoping enacted several economic reforms effectively moving China towards a free market economy.
Today, the masses of farmers/peasants in the countryside are pissed at hell over the government / drawing the short end of globalization but have no voice, no way to organize. But the middle class in the cities have been appeased by capitalism, just as Deng had hoped. They've seen their standard of living---and most importantly, the perception of upward mobility---skyrocket beyond imagination. Why would they want to rock the boat now? It's hard to imagine a revolution happening without the support of the middle class in the cities.
But, as time goes on, it may become increasingly difficult for the Party to maintain its identity while appeasing the voracious appetite of yuppiedom. In the early going, market reform could be largely separated from political reform, but as the standard of living rises, we get into areas that require political/legal reform in order to keep the foreign investment pouring in: in particular, clamping down on corruption, transparency of the law and trust in the legal system, removal of the fat-cat state industries that line the Party member's pockets. What I wonder is, if the Party manages to "stay in power" by ceding to these reforms, will it even look anything like the police state / bad-guy government we in the West love to hate? Perhaps Singapore provides a vision of what such a government may look like.