How does a regime remaining Communist in China survive after the collapse of the USSR? sruvive

[LuckyR]

An overly pejorative and jingoisticly styled commentary.

Though there is a kernel of truth in there as the Asian culture puts a relative value on societal (vs individual) benefit higher than the European culture (Russia) which is higher than the North American culture.

I have found from my studies that Native American philosophy put the highest value on individual freedom.

It is possible perhaps that the American Colonial "Founding Fathers" gained some of their appreciation for individual freedom from the Native Americans.

John Locke is the philosopher who had the greatest influence on the Colonial Americans however.

And the Asians had no semblance of a John Locke. They only had Confucius and Buddha.

While true enough, it is my suspicion that cultural observations have a cultural (as opposed to philosophical) source.

[h_k_s]

I have found from my studies that Native American philosophy put the highest value on individual freedom.

It is possible perhaps that the American Colonial "Founding Fathers" gained some of their appreciation for individual freedom from the Native Americans.

John Locke is the philosopher who had the greatest influence on the Colonial Americans however.

And the Asians had no semblance of a John Locke. They only had Confucius and Buddha.

While true enough, it is my suspicion that cultural observations have a cultural (as opposed to philosophical) source.

The only Asians that appreciate American values which are derived from America philosophy, which is mostly Locke-ian, are the Japanese and the South Koreans. And that's only due to their exposure to the U.S. Army and Douglas MacArthur.

[Sculptor1]

Why is the Communist regime in China still going strong so long after the implosion of the U.S.S.R., which was the predominant power in communism?

You are confusing a word with reality. You might as well ask since they are still both "democracies" why are they so different?
Neither Russia, nor China followed the principles of communism. Rather than put the means of production in the hands of the people it was taken into the hands of the state. That is not communism, but state-capitalism.
Bother Russia and China have changed, but since they were never quite the same, it matter very little that one calls itself communist whilst the other no longer does.
Where they remain the same is that they have both kept most of the power in the hands of the state, and whilst "democracy" is still used as a word to describe themselves as in fact they already did under "communism", neither has a mature democracy.

Consider a country that offers elections to its people, yet every year the same people are in power. The faces might change but the people who hold all the cards never change. That is true in China and in Russia.
But, wait... Surely this is also true in the USA? The people have no power. Trump and people like him have always been in power. The only difference now is that one of them has an office. The real reason the establishment don't like Trump is that he is too **** obviously a merchant of power, but now the mask has fallen away.

[Alias]

I have found from my studies that Native American philosophy put the highest value on individual freedom.

Which nation(s)? I have not noticed that. In fact, I have not noticed anything like a hierarchy of values; rather a horizontal melting of one thing into another. Community responsibility is certainly emphasized in many native value systems; respect for and attention to the elders, keeping one's word, doing one's share and regard for the environment. Yes, I see a strong thread of personal identity and individual relationship to the natural/spiritual (there is no hard line between the two), but I see an equally strong thread of obligation.

It is possible perhaps that the American Colonial "Founding Fathers" gained some of their appreciation for individual freedom from the Native Americans.

I sincerely doubt that. The natives may have helped them survive, but were never given any credit whatever for ideas. The settlers got all their ideas from white men who lived in Europe and published wordy treatises.

Lucky R -- While true enough, it is my suspicion that cultural observations have a cultural (as opposed to philosophical) source.

All cultural beliefs and practices have a philosophical bases - even if the philosophy is not published in wordy treatises.

[LuckyR]

Lucky R -- While true enough, it is my suspicion that cultural observations have a cultural (as opposed to philosophical) source.

All cultural beliefs and practices have a philosophical bases - even if the philosophy is not published in wordy treatises.

Ok, but could the philosophy be a post hoc explanation of the existing culture?

[Alias]

[All cultural beliefs and practices have a philosophical bases - even if the philosophy is not published in wordy treatises.]

Ok, but could the philosophy be a post hoc explanation of the existing culture?

It's always both. There was once a shared world-view that was part of the way a people lived and developed, that infused their mythology, informed their language, social organization and customs. Over time, that world-view was influenced by contacts with the outside, in the form of trade and intermarriage, and impacted more traumatically by wars and conquests. So, there is a philosophy - or more accurately, a philosophical thread - that runs deep in the culture. There are also layers of post-hoc justification, rationalization, by regimes that got power through armed force. What's interesting is that the victorious empire - be it Assyrian, Roman, Mongol or English - while attempting to superimpose its own iconography and morality on the existing belief-system, also takes away some aspects of the subject people's culture.

[gad-fly]

Why is the Communist regime in China still going strong so long after the implosion of the U.S.S.R., which was the predominant power in communism?

You might as well ask since they are still both "democracies" why are they so different?

Does a term like communism and democracy matter when a regime applies that to call itself. Yes and No. On the one hand, you are what you are despite whatever adjective you apply to describe yourself. In this respect, a term serving no influence may as well be skipped, since action speaks louder than words. On the other hand, a term would arouse expectation of performance. The ensuing satisfaction or disappointment may be crucial to a regime's survival, when peer comparison can be made.

The regime change in USSR/Russia is loud and clear for all to see. The country's name change is accompanied by political and ideological change, away from soviet republics. One important lesson: a regime must give some semblance of what it really is before it can hope to be accepted by its own people and by the world.

China, on the other hand, has not undergone regime change. It has undergone drastic transformation and reinvention to survive the storm, but such cannot be fully and openly acknowledged without justifying the need for regime change. Hence it musts still call itself communist.

One crucial factor on the different outcome of USSR and Communist China is what I would call "The tail wagging the dog." The Communist bloc, with East European satellites, the Warsaw pact, Latin American revolution, and China's competition for leadership, was too heavy a burden to carry. The USSR can be said to be "too large not to collapse". It it not the first. The British Empire is its predecessor. One distinct feature of such collapse is that it would implode rather than explode.

[Sculptor1]

You might as well ask since they are still both "democracies" why are they so different?

Does a term like communism and democracy matter when a regime applies that to call itself. Yes and No. On the one hand, you are what you are despite whatever adjective you apply to describe yourself. In this respect, a term serving no influence may as well be skipped, since action speaks louder than words. On the other hand, a term would arouse expectation of performance. The ensuing satisfaction or disappointment may be crucial to a regime's survival, when peer comparison can be made.

The regime change in USSR/Russia is loud and clear for all to see. The country's name change is accompanied by political and ideological change, away from soviet republics. One important lesson: a regime must give some semblance of what it really is before it can hope to be accepted by its own people and by the world.

China, on the other hand, has not undergone regime change. It has undergone drastic transformation and reinvention to survive the storm, but such cannot be fully and openly acknowledged without justifying the need for regime change. Hence it musts still call itself communist.

One crucial factor on the different outcome of USSR and Communist China is what I would call "The tail wagging the dog." The Communist bloc, with East European satellites, the Warsaw pact, Latin American revolution, and China's competition for leadership, was too heavy a burden to carry.

If you already think you know the answer it begs the question, why did you start the thread in the first place?
Was it just to express your own unique brand of prejudice, and reflect what you have been indoctrinated to think by your own media?

The USSR can be said to be "too large not to collapse". It it not the first. The British Empire is its predecessor. One distinct feature of such collapse is that it would implode rather than explode.

Confused comment.

[gad-fly]

If you already think you know the answer it begs the question, why did you start the thread in the first place?
Was it just to express your own unique brand of prejudice, and reflect what you have been indoctrinated to think by your own media?

I have thought about and studied some idea beforehand. I do not come unprepared and empty-handed. I may think mine is a good idea, but I want to know whether there are parallel ideas, some of which, including yours, may be better than mine. I am not here to preach, I want to be educated, informed, and benefited from people like you, through this helpful forum. I hope I am not asking too much.

[Sculptor1]

If you already think you know the answer it begs the question, why did you start the thread in the first place?
Was it just to express your own unique brand of prejudice, and reflect what you have been indoctrinated to think by your own media?

You might want to start by realising the neither China nor Russia were in any sense communist, and so neither retain anything which now still is.
The fact that they have both changed in the last 40 years is true, but since they both started from different places and have much more interesting cultural traditions they pre-date any form of modern politics, I think you might find your answer to their differences through deep history and anthropological questions.
Caricaturing them as both "communist" says almost nothing at all.
A single word even if applied accurately does not sum up two of the largest and oldest cultures on earth.

[gad-fly]

You might want to start by realising the neither China nor Russia were in any sense communist, and so neither retain anything which now still is.
The fact that they have both changed in the last 40 years is true, but since they both started from different places and have much more interesting cultural traditions they pre-date any form of modern politics, I think you might find your answer to their differences through deep history and anthropological questions.
Caricaturing them as both "communist" says almost nothing at all.
A single word even if applied accurately does not sum up two of the largest and oldest cultures on earth.

Thank you for the suggestion, but I am inclined not to categorically deny both the past USSR and the present-day China as Communist. As an ideology, Communism has evolved from its Marxist beginning and organically developed like a tree with branches each competing for nutrient and living space. One branch will usually be recognized as the trunk or mainstream. Some branch may be truncated or die naturally. For example, revisionism cannot be denied as communism. Gorbachev's reform could have been mainstream had it survived.

Communism is not a culture. It is an ideology struggling to dominate a regime. A culture would survive long after a regime is gone. While it last, a regime would adapt to a culture. To a minor extent, vice versa. Hence the difference between present-day Cuba, China, and Vietnam.

[Sculptor1]

You might want to start by realising the neither China nor Russia were in any sense communist, and so neither retain anything which now still is.
The fact that they have both changed in the last 40 years is true, but since they both started from different places and have much more interesting cultural traditions they pre-date any form of modern politics, I think you might find your answer to their differences through deep history and anthropological questions.
Caricaturing them as both "communist" says almost nothing at all.
A single word even if applied accurately does not sum up two of the largest and oldest cultures on earth.

Thank you for the suggestion, but I am inclined not to categorically deny both the past USSR and the present-day China as Communist. As an ideology, Communism has evolved from its Marxist beginning and organically developed like a tree with branches each competing for nutrient and living space. One branch will usually be recognized as the trunk or mainstream. Some branch may be truncated or die naturally. For example, revisionism cannot be denied as communism. Gorbachev's reform could have been mainstream had it survived.

How picturesque of you, but no. Even ideologies have defining characteristics.

Communism is not a culture. It is an ideology struggling to dominate a regime.
A culture would survive long after a regime is gone. While it last, a regime would adapt to a culture. To a minor extent, vice versa. Hence the difference between present-day Cuba, China, and Vietnam.

It's like you can't read.
I've not so much as suggested that Communism is a culture. I suggested that you shall understand the differences between the changes in China and Russia due to culture.

[gad-fly]

Even ideologies have defining characteristics.

Of course. A wolf in sheep skin is still a wolf. How can one claim to be a Marxist if his ideology cannot be traced to Marx? He can say what Marx has not said, he can modify what Marx has left ambiguous, and he can even override what he considers no longer appropriate, as in revisionism, but he must stick to the basic tenet. If not, he may as well find a new term to describe himself. It is a moot point whether Communist China has departed from that basic tenet. The least I can say is that they have not openly claimed to depart from it. I cannot rule out that they are doing it now by hook or by crook. I would give them the benefit of the doubt, and so would so many Chinese visitors I have come across, perhaps by force of circumstance, which I am not about to speculate.

I suggested that you shall understand the differences between the changes in China and Russia due to culture.

Thanks for you suggestion. Be assured that I do. Not only that, but it is fundamental for any contemporary student of politics to appreciate the crucial influence that culture plays in the rooting and growth of any ideology, including Communism, before and after its demise.