China – Politics – Page 3 – The Foreigner in Formosa

North Koreans Take The Trains

No, no, I mean literally. They actually TOOK the trains:

…food and fuel supplies sent to North Korea [from China] have been halted, not to force North Korea to stop missile tests or participate in peace talks, but to return the Chinese trains the aid was carried in on. In the last few weeks, the North Koreans have just kept the trains, sending the Chinese crews back across the border. North Korea just ignores Chinese demands that the trains be returned, and insists that the trains are part of the aid program. It’s no secret that North Korean railroad stock is falling apart, after decades of poor maintenance and not much new equipment.

[…]

The Chinese have tried to talk the North Koreans out of [their unworkable economic policies], and for their trouble they have their trains stolen. [Emphasis added]

Communists stealing property from other communists? Now THERE’S a stage of societal development overlooked in Marx’s Theory of Historical Materialism!

Views Within the Chinese Leadership

Over at StrategyPage, there’s a short column regarding what the Chinese leadership really thinks. Now, I’m no mind-reader, so I don’t claim any special insight into whether the Chinese communists view India as a future threat or not. There’s probably many schools of thought in Beijing. But this line struck me as being authentic:

…they don’t seem to think we’re “bogged down” in Iraq so much as that we’re gaining valuable combat experience (maybe a million “seasoned” troops by the time it’s over) as well as learning all sorts of new tricks in how to fight insurgencies, and how to use new military technologies*.

* I was talking to a Taiwanese aquaintance way back when, and he casually stated his belief that the real reason that America attacked Afghanistan was to test out its new weapons systems. 9-11? That was merely the excuse!

Now, normally I would dismiss this as the conjecturing of some kind of moonbat. Except that the individual in question was an otherwise bright young man who was in fact an ROC officer (or officer-in-training). So it doesn’t surprise me to hear that similar opinions hold sway among the political class on the other side of the Taiwan Strait.

Semantic Exactitude I: Communists

AsiaPundit favorably reviewed my previous post, but had a small quibble with my referring to Taiwan’s adversaries on the other side of the Strait as "communists". In truth, I’m not entirely happy with this description myself. AsiaPundit is right to point out that they ceased to be real communists the day they abandoned the economic model calling for state ownership of the means of production. One could refer simply to "Beijing" or "the Chinese leadership", but that glosses over the moral nature of the regime. So what word then, better designates their beliefs and policies?

"Fascist" seems too harsh, because the government in Beijing is not interested in the rigid state control over the economy that the fascists were enamored with. On the other hand, "authoritarian" is too mild, because the Chinese authorities work very hard to suppress the organizations of civil society (ie: religions) that many authoritarians are content to leave unmolested *.

What’s left? Demi-fascists? Para-authoritarians? Neo-communists? Maybe the poli-sci folks have a word for them in their arsenal, but it’s bound to be complicated and inelegant.

Which is why I’ve decided to stick to calling the rulers of China "communists". First of all, it’s what they call themselves, which counts for something **. Secondly, they still maintain some of the old dogmas, and worship the same gods (ie: Mao), so it’s not entirely inaccurate. Third, since the mainstream press still uses the term, it’s less confusing for the average reader when I proceed to follow suit.

Finally, it should be recognized that Chinese communism is not alone in being a political ideology that has evolved over time without shedding its original name. Conservative parties in Europe no longer champion the cause of the nobility, but are still called "conservative". Liberalism, at least in America, morphed into its current form from what we now call libertarianism, yet no one objects when Thomas Jefferson and Ted Kennedy are both referred to as "liberals".

* Content to leave unmolested, provided that the organizations in question do not challenge the authority of the political leadership.

** Blacks have not been called "negroes" for a long time, precisely because blacks now prefer "black" or "African-American". Still, this line of argument can be taken too far, and few would indulge the Butchers of Beijing if they began calling themselves "democrats".