What would a KMT-led China look like?

Baldtastic

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,184
Londinium
#21
The one-party hold on China did not degrade but strengthened and gained ever more legitimacy because the concept of a one party state has cultural and civilization roots. This is an unbroken two millennia foundation of China. The "Communists" did not give up power, but they didn't need to. They [CCP - Chinese "Civilization" Party] just had to function as a continuously refining and practical imperial bureaucracy and governing organization, and they did a great job at it since the death of Mao.

Taiwan become multiparty because of artificial "de-Sinicization" processes started during Lee Tenghui's rise and continued after him.

Consider: the KMT lacked the spiritual characteristics that made the CCP so much more successful. The CCP enjoyed much greater support from the masses of Chinese people, and they shared in their minds a brighter common purpose, and they imagined and felt something new and better. It's the unity and drive the KMT lacked in comparison.



But the KMT failed that even on tiny Taiwan. The one party state failed to maintain itself on Taiwan.

I've been over this before. The PRC government stems from Western civilization.

Communism, the CCP, is firmly rooted in western political theory and philosophy, from Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and onto the first communist nations/revolutions - all thoroughly western.

China, under the western ideology of Communism, removed (as much as could be removed) Chinese civ basis during the cultural revolution, breaking the millennia spanning Chinese civ's/dynasties.
 
Oct 2013
4,467
Canada
#22
I've been over this before. The PRC government stems from Western civilization.

Communism, the CCP, is firmly rooted in western political theory and philosophy, from Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and onto the first communist nations/revolutions - all thoroughly western.

China, under the western ideology of Communism, removed (as much as could be removed) Chinese civ basis during the cultural revolution, breaking the millennia spanning Chinese civ's/dynasties.
Your analysis of the CCP is only surface-level. You just say "Communism is Western, therefore..."

But you haven't looked at how the CCP functions, how it works, and from where it gathers legitimacy. Firstly, it is formally communist, but that does not apply practically. Secondly, the CCP isn't a political party. The concept of a political party doesn't exist in China either. The way the CCP governs China is a more similar to how China was governed in the past, but refined.

Communism under Mao did remove Chinese traditions, but is that the case now? No.
 
Last edited:

Baldtastic

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,184
Londinium
#23
Your analysis of the CCP is only surface-level. You just say "Communism is Western, therefore..."

But you haven't looked at how the CCP functions, how it works, and from where it gathers legitimacy. Firstly, it is formally communist, but that does not apply practically. Secondly, the CCP isn't a political party. The concept of a political party doesn't exist in China either. The way the CCP governs China is a more similar to how China was governed in the past, but refined.
EDIT: My argument isn't surface level, Communism is, as I said, rooted in western philosophy and political theory. It specifically came out of the societies that Marx and Engles observed, all western.

Just to clarify, are you arguing the Chinese Communist Party isn’t Communist and/or that Communism isn’t western?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
15,559
SoCal
#24
The one-party hold on China did not degrade but strengthened and gained ever more legitimacy because the concept of a one party state has cultural and civilization roots. This is an unbroken two millennia foundation of China. The "Communists" did not give up power, but they didn't need to. They [CCP - Chinese "Civilization" Party] just had to function as a continuously refining and practical imperial bureaucracy and governing organization, and they did a great job at it since the death of Mao.

Taiwan become multiparty because of artificial "de-Sinicization" processes started during Lee Tenghui's rise and continued after him.

Consider: the KMT lacked the spiritual characteristics that made the CCP so much more successful. The CCP enjoyed much greater support from the masses of Chinese people, and they shared in their minds a brighter common purpose, and they imagined and felt something new and better. It's the unity and drive the KMT lacked in comparison.

But the KMT failed that even on tiny Taiwan. The one party state failed to maintain itself on Taiwan.
Can you please elaborate on how de-Sinicization brought democracy to Taiwan?

Also, is China's love for the CCP's one-party rule the same reason that Russians appear to like strongmen leaders?
 
Oct 2013
4,467
Canada
#25
EDIT: My argument isn't surface level, Communism is, as I said, rooted in western philosophy and political theory. It specifically came out of the societies that Marx and Engles observed, all western.

Just to clarify, are you arguing the Chinese Communist Party isn’t Communist and/or that Communism isn’t western?
Yes Marx, Angels, and Communism are all Western but the CCP isn't a "Communist Party." The CCP is not a political party (which is a Western political concept that does not manifest in China) and it is not Communist. It is a multipolar organization governing the vast two millennia realm known as China.

Can you please elaborate on how de-Sinicization brought democracy to Taiwan?

Also, is China's love for the CCP's one-party rule the same reason that Russians appear to like strongmen leaders?
Lee Tenghui actively undermined Chinese identity in Taiwan. As president, he led Taiwanization to promote a separate national identity that is distinct with the Chinese national identity and promoted Taiwanese nationalism. Over time the DPP actually became viable as a political party, and the KMT's one-party hold faded.

I would suspect that Russians like strongmen because most Russians are fiercely patriotic of their distinct Eurasian nation-state and are proud of their race, heritage, culture, and military power. The Russia following the Dissolution of the USSR was a weak rump state. Russians don't like that. It happens so a strongman, who happens to the Putin, set Russia on a right course to national rejuvenation.

China's love for CCP's one-party rule is two-fold. Firstly, the CCP's legitimacy as a one-party state, as opposed to multiparty democracy, is based on a two millennia cultural trait and unique political philosophy. While the rest of the world became multiparty democracies, China was never interested in it. The Chinese people wanted something else. The people's general support for the CCP, not for Communism but for the CCP, is based on the CCP's track record in delivering what Chinese people want. They want their children to live better lives and they want to see national rejuvenation, for China to reach the same level of prestige and centrality the Tang once enjoyed.

So the CCP's legitimacy and governance of China is based on culture and then based on track record.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
15,559
SoCal
#26
Lee Tenghui actively undermined Chinese identity in Taiwan. As president, he led Taiwanization to promote a separate national identity that is distinct with the Chinese national identity and promoted Taiwanese nationalism. Over time the DPP actually became viable as a political party, and the KMT's one-party hold faded.

I would suspect that Russians like strongmen because most Russians are fiercely patriotic of their distinct Eurasian nation-state and are proud of their race, heritage, culture, and military power. The Russia following the Dissolution of the USSR was a weak rump state. Russians don't like that. It happens so a strongman, who happens to the Putin, set Russia on a right course to national rejuvenation.

China's love for CCP's one-party rule is two-fold. Firstly, the CCP's legitimacy as a one-party state, as opposed to multiparty democracy, is based on a two millennia cultural trait and unique political philosophy. While the rest of the world became multiparty democracies, China was never interested in it. The Chinese people wanted something else. The people's general support for the CCP, not for Communism but for the CCP, is based on the CCP's track record in delivering what Chinese people want. They want their children to live better lives and they want to see national rejuvenation, for China to reach the same level of prestige and centrality the Tang once enjoyed.

So the CCP's legitimacy and governance of China is based on culture and then based on track record.
Thanks for this information!

Anyway, are you suggesting that, had the KMT ruled over all of China, they would have likewise permanently become a one-party state?

Also, it's very interesting that various other Asians support democracy. Specifically the South Koreans, Japanese, Mongolians, Cambodians, Filipinos, et cetera.
 
Oct 2013
4,467
Canada
#27
Thanks for this information!

Anyway, are you suggesting that, had the KMT ruled over all of China, they would have likewise permanently become a one-party state?

Also, it's very interesting that various other Asians support democracy. Specifically the South Koreans, Japanese, Mongolians, Cambodians, Filipinos, et cetera.
Taiwan was a essentially one-party state, under the KMT.

The other Asian countries aren't big and populous like China. Whatever works for them.
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,005
#28
Can you please elaborate on how de-Sinicization brought democracy to Taiwan?
His argument is roughly the same as arguing Germany should be Nazi, Russia should be Bolshevik, and most of Europe absolute monarchies...

The Chinese can build any kind of society they want, by they will be actively sad if they end up thinking they can only exist as subjects in a dictature. And actively dangerous if they think that's what they should be spreading around to the world.
 
Oct 2013
4,467
Canada
#29
His argument is roughly the same as arguing Germany should be Nazi, Russia should be Bolshevik, and most of Europe absolute monarchies...

The Chinese can build any kind of society they want, by they will be actively sad if they end up thinking they can only exist as subjects in a dictature. And actively dangerous if they think that's what they should be spreading around to the world.
Wow. You captured my argument perfectly. Germany should be Nazi and Russia should be a Soviet Republic. That is exactly what I wanted to say! Thanks!

No. I am not arguing Germany and Russia should be a specific way. I am arguing that the Chinese are distinct. They have their own destiny and aspirations and they should and could best progress along their divergent path with their own divergent system.

China isn't trying to spread its model around the world. The Chinese model is not enough. Chinese culture does not harbour a messiah-complex. Chinese political thought does not have an Abrahamic universalist tendency to force and convert others.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
15,559
SoCal
#30
Wow. You captured my argument perfectly. Germany should be Nazi and Russia should be a Soviet Republic. That is exactly what I wanted to say! Thanks!

No. I am not arguing Germany and Russia should be a specific way. I am arguing that the Chinese are distinct. They have their own destiny and aspirations and they should and could best progress along their divergent path with their own divergent system.

China isn't trying to spread its model around the world. The Chinese model is not enough. Chinese culture does not harbour a messiah-complex. Chinese political thought does not have an Abrahamic universalist tendency to force and convert others.
Are you Chinese yourself?
 

Similar History Discussions