On a spring day in Beijing almost a decade ago, tens of thousands of people gathered on the pavement surrounding the high-walled Zhongnanhai compound, the Chinese equivalent of the Kremlin. They were protesting, but there was barely a murmur to be heard from the enormous crowd. There were no banners, no megaphones noisily chanting demands, no unruly behaviour. It was not a typical demonstration – the participants were seated and meditating. They stayed for around twelve hours. These people were members of the rapidly expanding Falun Gong sect, and they were asking for recognition, legitimacy and an end to perceived mistreatment from the Chinese central government. The then-Chinese premier met with the group’s leaders, following which they all left as quietly as they had arrived.
Shortly after this protest, the Chinese government declared the sect a dire ideological threat to the People’s Republic of China, and a huge and rigorous nationwide crackdown followed. Practitioners in powerful positions saw their careers ended abruptly. Thousands were ‘re-educated’. Several, according to numerous human rights advocates, did not survive their enlightenment at the hands of the Chinese state. The sect’s leader was demonised, its teachings subjected to the harshest denunciations. In response, many Falun Gong practitioners held silent protests all over China. A few caught the world’s attention by self-immolating in Tiananmen Square, which explains why each of the numerous military personnel guarding the square have a fire extinguisher placed within arm’s length of their positions.
Unsurprisingly, these protests failed. Falun Gong in mainland China is a massively diminished, illegal underground movement. It is still an extremely politically sensitive topic in China. It is carefully referred to as ‘FG’ when written about on-line, in the (probably vain) hope that such abbreviations will avoid the notice of China’s vigilant internet police (who probably do not care all that much about 99% of these references, but the fact that Chinese internet users go to such lengths is revealing in itself). The government has successfully and widely propagated the idea that Falun Gong is a degenerate cult. However, being a senior central government figure in China isn’t all stomping on pesky wayward meditation sects. The Chinese leadership is still basking in the glow of the international acclaim won from most efficiently hosting the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing. Not everyone is so chuffed. Several months before the impeccably presented opening ceremony unfolded, Chinese Olympics officials proudly declared that all events were sold out. Hundreds of thousands of disappointed Chinese fans packed up their overnight camps outside the Bank of China branches where tickets were fleetingly available. Countless others cursed their luck as they came up short in the on-line ticket lottery. Never mind, at least they could catch the action on television. However, they were dismayed to see numerous supposedly sold out events with almost no spectators in the stands. There were so few bums on seats in some venues that the camera had to keep taking close-ups of the same group of people when it shot the crowd. How could this be? It is most likely that the tickets disappeared, quite deliberately, down a black hole.The fact is that the Chinese government abhors a crowd or movement that they don’t feel in control of, and it will go to great lengths to prevent the formation of these. If they are too late, ruthlessly quashing anything that does manage to coalesce may become necessary. There are one or two other events in modern Chinese history that support this assertion.
As you are reading this, a well-off American couple in their 60s are most likely to be working in the not-for-profit community centre that they have established in a satellite city not too far east of Beijing. Locals are welcome to make use of the centre’s table tennis equipment and other recreational facilities. The foreign volunteers also run several classes a week, however one must be a bit discreet about these, as they are illegal bible classes. Still, this is China and it is a given that the ever-persuadable local authorities (the same kind you will find all over the country) are well aware of what else is going on at the ‘community centre’, apart from the ping pong tournaments and English corner lessons.
Time to come clean; a colleague of mine’s parents are the well-off American couple. Almost everyone who they have hired to work at their centre – from the office managers to the humble ayis (cleaners) – have embraced Christianity, and many of these people have gone home and converted their villages. That’s right, villages. It is an enormously successful missionary operation. Illegal, of course, but it is operating outside the direct jurisdiction of the central government and sheltered by local authorities who are more than happy to accept the ‘rates’ it pays them. There are many thousands like it all over China.
Christianity is exploding in this country. It is impossible to ascertain how many tens – or possibly hundreds – of millions who have converted over the last few years, as the government is certainly not keeping score at this point, and many would not admit the fact, anyway. However, talk to someone spreading the gospel in China and they will tell you that this is Christianity’s most fertile frontier. I work in a perfectly legal enterprise in China, and something like half a dozen of the Westerners I have worked with thus far are either proselytising in their spare time or have a close relative or friend who is doing so. On two occasions, I have overheard newly arrived missionaries discussing their upcoming missions on the airport shuttle bus. These are of course criminal activities, and, if caught, missionaries are flung out of the country indefinitely. There are plenty of replacements, though.
Many who have worked in China would contend that the country could do with a good dose of Christian values, and I do not disagree, despite not being a believer myself. The central authorities currently have an uneasy truce with the practising of Christianity here. There are churches in China; those that only foreigners are allowed to attend – a foreign passport must be shown upon entry – and those for the small number of officially registered Chinese Christians. The overwhelming majority of Chinese Christians attend illegal home chapels and there are undoubtedly many hundreds of thousands of these dotted all over the country. I believe this rapidly escalating social phenomenon – that the always-paranoid central government has almost no control over – will signify a decisive fork in the road for the direction of the country’s development.
The way the Chinese government responds to the growth of Christianity represents a harbinger of what we can expect China’s future government to look like. Will it relent and accept that there are large elements within Chinese society beyond its control? This would represent a massive shift towards a liberal stance which would probably have far-reaching consequences for the efficiently repressive Chinese state. Or will it retreat back into its familiar insistence of hyper control like it did with the Falun Gong affair, going to enormous lengths to extinguish the home chapels and forcing the Chinese Christian movement deep underground?
Suppressing Falun Gong was an easy decision to make for the Chinese government, as accommodating them was clearly not necessary. Their bargaining position was weak. They had no powerful friends. There were few negative consequences in ignoring their demands and wiping them out instead. I guarantee that there is not one Chinese leader who has lost a single second’s sleep over an Amnesty International report. However, a Falun Gong solution to arrest the unnerving growth of Christianity has infinitely more downsides. Christianity is the dominant religion in the Western democracies, which will, for the foreseeable future, have the ability (at enormous cost to themselves, of course) to halt China’s integration with the global market and reverse its recent economic gains. If the Chinese government started persecuting Christians en masse, the West, led by the USA, would almost certainly move to isolate China. The process of globalisation would grind to a halt.
Of course, this would spell economic catastrophe for all parties concerned. Many would assert that the Chinese government has no choice but to accommodate Christianity, if the other alternative is the utter destruction of the modern Chinese economy, along with all the political fallout that would entail. I disagree – to assume this is the only option would be to misinterpret what primarily motivates China’s rulers. Thirty years ago, the Chinese leadership did not embrace aspects of the market economy for the purpose of making the lives of their citizens better by enriching them – they did it because they realised the continued application of catastrophic Marxist-Leninist-Mao Zedong thought throughout society would see them thrown up against the wall, probably sooner rather than later. Stodgy communist doctrines no longer provided legitimacy to rule. The people wanted better lives and the communists promised them that via the market, which has been effective. The communists abandoned their purportedly cherished ideology to stay in power, and considering the ferocity with which they have dealt with perceived threats to their authority in the recent past, there is no reason to believe that they would behave very differently now. Therein lies the ultimate goal of China’s leaders – not upholding Mao’s dubious wisdom, not a commitment to the global market economy – but maintaining their power. If viewed through that rubric, the decision to either accommodate Christianity (and relinquish a sizeable amount of control, yet maintain prosperity) or to drive it out of China (and consolidate control at the expense of recent economic gains) becomes much less predictable.
Some might argue that if the government chose the latter, the Chinese people would blame them for ruining the economy and their lives, and rise up in response. I think the Chinese government could easily appeal to the widespread nationalist sentiment that exists in the Chinese community to deflect responsibility away from them. They would simply shut down as much contact with the outside world as possible, declare that Christianity is a subversive force which will destroy the country if left unchecked, and provide some plausible but manufactured evidence to underscore its assertions – pretty much exactly what it did with Falun Gong. Enough people would probably believe this to maintain the government’s grip on power. As a further distraction, they could also claim that the ‘Christian USA’ is preparing to invade in response to ‘the Chinese nation’s self-defence’, or something along those lines. Constructing a propaganda alibi to get the Chinese government off the hook politically would not necessarily be all that difficult.
I should make it clear that I think there is a good chance that the Chinese government will decide to learn to live with the large, largely unmanageable and growing Christian population within its borders. If it does this, I think we have some reason to be optimistic about the rise of a more liberal Chinese government in the future. Nevertheless, we should not assume that the current Chinese leadership will loosen their grip on power to safeguard their country’s prosperity. In the West, it is mistakenly believed that “may you live in interesting times” is an ancient Chinese curse. In fact, no such curse exists. Nevertheless, we do live in interesting times, and the rise of Christianity amongst the masses of China will be an interesting test of the Chinese government’s priorities.
Having spent a good deal of time in China, and having met some WaiGuoRen doing similar things to what this couple you speak of are doing, I certainly know how true your analysis is.
And I think there is one big question on everyone’s mind, the answer to which would show us which path of the fork will be taken: how many people in the military and in leadership positions are being converted, and how high have they penetrated?
This, I think, will be the most important factor in determining the outcome of this explosion of Christianity.
There is a difference between Christianity and Falun Gong, in the result of any repression.
If Falun Gong is suppressed, in the future, if repression is eased, it will have to regrow organically. With Christianity there will be a large outside pool of missionaries ready to come in and refertilise the soil, as well as provide support during the period of suppression.
Hmmm.
Ok guys, this is where one Libertarian gets off the train.
FLG is an evil cult. That’s ok, so is the Church. So is Islam. These are all stupid, intolerant superstitions. And that’s all good and well, in the West. China, on the other hand, has had some pretty nasty experiences with religious uprisings.
One needn’t look too far back into Chinese history to see how other millenarian cults expressed themselves upon seizing worldly power. Yes, you can argue that other countries have freedom of religion and everything is fine, but I bet if the Mormons had killed 20 million people settling Utah Americans wouldn’t be so blase about it. The last big religious awakening in China, the TaiPing Rebellion, managed to throw half the country into anarchy.
If you think the Chinese government should introduce genuine, American-style freedom of religion, you need to accept the likely consequences. Would Samizdata readers be happy about Saudi Wahhabists openly preaching and converting the youth of Xinjiang? What about Li Hongzhi telling millions of his adherents not to use modern medicine, because his mind waves will cure them? How about 100 million Sichuanese refusing vaccinations?
I think that religious freedom in China would have real costs, and that these would be significant.
Is this a racist argument? I am holding Chinese people to a different standard, aren’t I?
I welcome constructive criticism.
I bet the Romans would agree with that; it still did not work then, and the results were (let’s say) less than optimum.
Anonymous:
Can you explain why?
Anonymous,
Never mind what anyone here sees as the ideal scenario. What is much more likely to happen in practice, in the case of liberalisation, is a gradual opening. There are plenty of countries in the world which have less freedom of religion than the US but are less oppressive than China. If the Chinese emulated the religious intolerance of say Turkey or Malaysia, that would already be an improvement over the status quo.
Speaking for myself, I wouldn’t be happy about it, although I would argue that Wahhabism isn’t primarily a religious doctrine; it conflates spiritual and secular authority and IMHO should mainly be seen as a political ideology.
Well, If they are really that thick, let them. I can see how the Chinese might monopolize the Darwin awards if your prediction comes true, but if they do so by choice –why not? What would bother me though, is a single case of compulsory medical treatment of responsible adults in any case that doesn’t involve a serious danger of contagion.
Christianity has shown many times that it is perfectly compatible with ruthless repressive dictatorship. Falangist Spain for example, or the entire Medieval period. Russian Orthodox Christianity was specifically chosen by the Tsar because it was the most compatible with his totalitarian rule from all those on offer at the time as an upgrade from the paganism. Christianity as we know it was created in order to support the imperial rule of Emperor Constantine. The chinese leadership will do whatever they need to maintain their rule, but Christianity need not be a danger to them. They could just create an approved version of Christianity with the head of state as the head of the church (similar to Anglicanism) which could even help to strengthen their rule.
China will undoubtedly accept some form of “sanitized” Christianity, such as the versions practiced in South America. It’s no threat to them; in fact, those ministers are “useful idiots” who will probably help the Communist Party maintain power. I don’t view this as a bellweather for China’s movement toward a more western-style acceptance of personal freedoms. The more interesting case would be smaller, less controllable sects (or “cults”), such Mormonism, or Seventh-Day Adventism, or even (let us hope!) Scientology. When Scientology is accepted in China we will have them exactly where we want them!
Also, I second Alisa’s question. I don’t know anything about FLG. What makes it an “evil cult” (any more than, say, Catholocism)?
Another development in China.
Crashing pyramid schemes changed things for ever in some parts of Eastern Europe, notably Albania, in the 90s.
As in Albania, a big proportion of Jishou’s population is feeling stung and pissed off. If these schemes are widespread in China, and an economic downturn starts to trigger more widespread crashes, then watch out, CCP!
Yes, nothing improves a people like having them believe that they have a dead friend who will torture them for eternity if they don’t love him enough.
Sounds like the current Chinese Government
to me, Ian B. 😉
Yes what does Falon Gong believe?
Bit of Tai Chi in the morning
and high tea in the afternoon…
Something harmless like that,
or more sinister.
Christ! didn’t know China still had Christians.
How’d they manage that?
Mao and all.
Give them their due, they must be tenatious little fuckers for Jesus.
Frankly, if I were a Chinaman I imagine I’d see this in much the same way as, as a European, I see the rise of Islam here. My above comment breaks a personal sort-of-rule I’ve adopted of not getting directly into religion-vs-atheism arguments as they’re a waste of time and hell people can believe whatever they like and, of course, much of the atheist/secular “community” goes around believing in non-religious extremist ethical systems like socialism and environmentalism, thus demonstrating that most people feel a need to devote their lives to some kind of imaginary rubbish, whether gods are involved or not.
But I found the triumphalist tone of this posting remarkable and something I’d expect to see on Christian Families For Godliness.com not Samizdata. Returning to my first observation, it’s just the christian equivalent of insane muslims gloating over how they’re going to
convertconquer Europe and how the foolish dhimmis are too weak to stop them.Libertarianism means of course freedom of faith and belief. Doesn’t mean libs have to cheer when people get sucked into religions, communism, fascism or anything else they’re entitled to believe in. I found the section abour running community centres as covers for conversion operations entirely appalling. No, that’s not a strong enough word. Disgusting doesn’t quite go far enough either, frankly. How about all these missionaries getting on a plane and going the fuck home and minding their own fucking business?
Because it’s their money, and they’re spending it and their time in a fashion that makes them happy?
Awfully judgmental for a supposed libertarian, Ian.
Ian B, I feel the same way about missionaries as you do, but doesn’t this fall into the “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” category?
Also, I wish people would stop drawing moral equivalences between the modern versions of Christianity and Islam, because there are none.
Don’t let anybody fool you, friends, I submit the only Christians who’d take your heads off are those who weren’t being true Christians. The rest of us the rest of the time aren’t so jazzed up about it.
Now, before anybody talks ‘no true Scotsman’, let me just point out that definitions matter, and if the Scottish Parliament passed a law requiring all Scotsmen to wear kilts or lose their citizenship, then by definition a kilt-less Scotsman would soon be ‘no true Scotsman’. Same thing with Christians – the core of our faith is Jesus, and the worst He’d ever done on Earth was chase merchants out of His House. With a whip, maybe, but still, just getting rid of tresspassers. Oh, and made a few hundred pigs drown, but what’s that?
I make here the distinction between a ‘true’ Christian and a ‘real’ Christian. I may be real in my profession of faith in Jesus Christ, but certainly there are times when I do not act ‘true’ to that profession of faith and all that it entails. Hence, in those circumstances, I am not being a true Christian.
Ian B, if you profess to be a true libertarian, well. Bugger off. Otherwise, you’re of course entitled to your opinion.
While I’m on my soapbox-
This is a strikingly bizarre quote. Compare “I don’t believe in communism myself, but I think communist values would be good for people”. Look, either God exists, the Christian
onethreewhatever, ortheydoesn’t. Or don’t. That’s the only issue. If He doesn’t exist, as our poster apparently believes, then clearly it’s an absurd waste of time following a belief system built around Him.But let’s look at those “christian values”. Now one of the most irritating things about belief systems is they do this thing of claiming to be associated with everything good. See also socialism. But what values can we actually associate with christianity? Let’s look at the Age Of Christianity in the west.
Well, we can easily associate “killing other people who believe in the same God but believe slightly different things about Him” for the Captain Obvious Award. Was Jesus God, or was he of God? Hmm, better sort that one out with a pogrom or two. Trinity or no trinity? What day is Easter? Difficult stuff to fight about there.
But of course that’s not the main issue. That Christian Age coincided with the low point of western civilisation, the famous Dark Ages. Now I’m not going to go all Gibbon and say the rise of the Church killed Rome- it was far more complex than that. But look at the writings and art that survive from that time. What’s striking is that they’re all about Jesus and Christianity. That’s all there is. Philosophy is all about Christianity. Every damned badly executed painting is christian in subject. There is nothing else. And what did people aspire to? What did the Great Men of the age do? Tried to be more holy. That’s it. Wear a filthy infested shirt to prove what a worm before God you are. Sit on a pole for 20 years. Denial, spirituality. Worthless, futile codswallop.
And we might look at the Mediaeval Warm Period. The climate cheered up a bit, and people had a bit more wealth. What did they spend it on?
Big sodding useless cathedrals.
That’s christian values for you. The diversion of all of the intellect and most of the wealth of societies into the big black hole of the religion. Look at Islam now, and you see Christianity in its heyday.
So what happened next? The gradual reawakening of thought, and the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment, as the weight of that absolute religion was gradually shrugged off, at great cost to those who did it often enough. After a thousand years of not being allowed to write a note of music that wasn’t a bloody hymn, or paint a picture that wasn’t Jesus, or write a book that wasn’t about how to obey God even more, people had had enough. They pushed Christianity back into the big sodding useless cathedrals, told it to keep its voice down, and started living life again instead of spending it all imagining death. And that was what created the Western World we know and love; people who fought for the right to be individuals, to create things for themselves instead of for His Lordship, to have a bit of a laugh every now and again and paint a haywain or a nudey nymph or two instead of Interminable Scenes From The Bible.
And then bloody christians come storming out of their big sodding useless cathedrals declaiming that it was all their idea and those Western values are “Christian Values”. Well they bloody aren’t. There isn’t a word in the Bibble about democracy, decent government or civil liberties. Not a word about how to build a steam engine or a better moustrap. The West, the world we love and we, or at least I, anyway, would like to get more people involved in is post-religious. It’s the reaction against the smothering shroud of religious power. It’s “leave us alone, old man in a dress, we’re going to have a party and not sing a single hymn”. Christianity deserves credit for that only by being so damnably unpleasant that it created the reaction.
Makes my blood boil, so it does.
Well as an atheist, I’m not the one to write a quick precis of the history of Christianity, but even I can see a few errors in Ian Bs rather broad brushstrokes.
This is bollocks for starters!
After a thousand years of not being allowed to write a note of music that wasn’t a bloody hymn,
Ian B may have indulged in a little hyperbole, but the general thrust of his argument is correct. The Catholic Church (which was Christianity until Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the church door at Wittenburg, thereby unleashing the Protesant Reformation and eventually the Enlightenment) was, by Luther’s time, as corrupt an organization as is Putin’s Russia today. By some estimates it controlled 60% of the land in all of Europe (which could never be sold or released due to Church doctrine). Endlessly proliferating “holy days” seriously reduced the amount of time available for the masses to engage in productive labor. The sale of indulgences was rife; it became nearly impossible to do anything without paying off some bishop or other cleric. Monasteries, priories, abbeys, hermitages, etc., dotted the landscape and absorbed so much of the available wealth (which wasn’t much to begin with) that it became an intolerable burden on society. What is most surprising is the speed with which that burden was cast off; a thousand years of religious oppression was rejected in basically one generation.
But, you object, this is merely a criticizm of one corrupt church, not of the underlying religion itself. That argument is exactly the one used by proponents of Communism: the theory itself is sound, but it has been misapplied by fallible humans or perverted to their selfish ends. And the answer is the same: bunk (or perhaps you would prefer “bollocks”). The failures are not aberrations; they are embedded in the very foundation of the ideology itself.
Furthermore, there is Nietzsche’s cogent observation that Christianity is a “slave religion”, with its highest ideal being subservience. Adherents must bow to “the will of God” and hope for their ultimate reward in another life. What religion could be more perfect for any country which makes huge demands on its citizenry in the name of national glory?
Personally, I would much prefer to see pirate copies of “The Wealth of Nations” and “Two Treatises of Government”, and possibly also the United States Declaration of Independence, smuggled into China than bibles.
Of course the internet censors in China are helped by “do not be evil” Google and other trash – just as they will help such censorship in the United States if they get a chance.
In the recent “games” chaplins were not allowed to go with the British team.
Even in the Moscow games of 1980 those teams who went (the British did not) were allowed to have chaplins of their choice.
I am old enough to remember when British people, if told they could not have chaplins of their choice, would have said “stuff your games” and not gone.
Not even athiests would have gone – indeed some of the athiests would have been the loudest voices for freedom.
I hope that the American team insisted on being allowed to take chaplins of their choice with them. But I fear they were as cowardly and medal obsessed as the British.
What is the point of a gold medal if one has to be without honour to get it?
It is not a sign of achievement – it is a badge of shame.
As for the local religions of China (such as “F.G.”) they must have the same freedom as everyone else.
“The Catholic Church … was, by Luther’s time, as corrupt an organization as is Putin’s Russia today.”
True. In Luther’s time there was virtually no secular life in Europe. Civil government comprised petty local barons shaking down the peasants for grain. The church had to contain all the elements that now make up modern secular life: the academy, banking and finance, organized crime, the press, and many functions of local government, all had to be accomodated under the clerical umbrella. In a religious institution, the compromises necessary to contain all those interests were corruption, by definition.
What followed Luther (eventually) was the idea that the church should handle salvation and the afterlife, and all “profane” functions should be assigned to secular institutions. To this day, conservative congregations in America still teach separation of church and state — not out of respect for secular institutions, but because of fear that secular politics will corrupt the church. (Such figures as Dobson, Robertson and Fallwell notwithstanding.)
“…And then b****y christians come storming out of their big s******g useless cathedrals declaiming that it was all their idea and those Western values are “Christian Values”. Well they b****y aren’t.”
I don’t think there needs to be a contradiction, here. Until a couple of generatons ago, if you had a consensus around any values in the West, it had to be a Christian consensus. Nowadays, of course, you have enough functioning non-believers around that support for Western values is more broad-based.
I’m reluctant to get into arguments about how bright materialist thinking has banished dark religious ignorance. Any argument that connects modern Christians to the excesses of the past, also connects all materialists to the excsses of the post-Enlightenment. (So you point to “the Inquisition” and I point to “the Reign of Terror, the Cultural Revolution and the Holocaust;” and then you say, “Cardinal Ximenez” and I say “Reinhardt Heidrich, Pol Pot and Leverenti Beria,” and so on through a wasted hour or two.)
As fashionable as it may be to heap on Christianity, I’ve found the record on secular materialism (in all its forms) makes lamentable reading. The Enlightenment brought wonderful things. As a framework for designing airplanes, treating the clap, and sorting plants, animals and people into categories, it’s been a marvel. But as the basis for a comprehensive social and ethical schema, its been a catastrophe everywhere it’s been tried.
Yeah…no doubt the Catholic Church was really, really corrupt. However, I’m not exactly sure that was a function of religion so much as the excesses of allowing ANY institution to centralize to that degree.
Apologies for the delay.
Alisa – FLG tells people not to seek medical care, but rather place their faith in qigong. When this is said to someone with a serious but treatable illness, it is tantamount to injuring them through fraud.
Rantingkraut – What level of religious freedom do you think appropriate? I am not at all unsympathetic to your contentions, I just don’t feel comfortable with the likely results. At the time when FLG were repressed in China, they were aggressively proselytizing in the PLA and the security forces. Had they been allowed to continue, I don’t think the result would have been a freer, more open China. Quite the opposite.
chris strange – I agree.
Ian B – I don’t really see any of the religious groups as being any better or worse than each other: Their tendency to violence is simply a function of their power in society. I suspect Baha’i is a peaceful religion because they have always been a tiny minority, and that were they to achieve a sufficient level of worldly power they would surely become as repressive and horrible as the medieval church, Islam in Saudi Arabia, etc.
If any of my Baha’i friends read Samizdata, I am done for.
No it is not. By that logic any questionable contention is ‘fraud’. Unless they use force to prevent people seeking medical care, it is just a belief and saying that justifies the Chinese government crushing them is appalling. I think a great many things people urge others to do are foolish, should I demand force be used to impose my ways on all civil society?
So? You prefer the main arm of repression of a national socialist regime remain disturbed by alternative views? The PLA is not a ‘normal’ army, it is a ‘political’ army quite unlike those in most advanced nations. It is an utterly odious institution and it is hard to see how any changes to it could be for the worse.
Perry d H –
On reflection, I guess it is not injuring them, point taken. But it is rather like complex commercial dealings with people who have never previously been exposed to them: People in China have gone for a long time without exposure to religion and are susceptible to every quack who comes along with a silly superstition.
If someone convinced an elderly relative of mine to abandon modern medicine for magic crystals, I would try my mightiest to convince the relative that this is a bad idea. The difference is, my relative in the West has be exposed to such claims all her life, and has access to plenty of opposing views. This is very much not the case in China, where media is state controlled and people are not used to openly discussing the credibility of their media.
I would like to see complete freedom of speech and religion in China: I just wouldn’t like to see it tomorrow. The institutions and attitudes that would allow it to work need to be built up. And they are being built, albeit slowly and in a piecemeal manner. I would note the growth and independence of the commercial courts as a good example.
Talk of institutions leads into your second point: The PLA.
. Well, let’s look at another country nearby that took a different political path in the 70’s – North Korea. Seems like a worse outcome to me. I would say the PLA could become worse by;
Insisting on a greater share of political power;
Insisting on an immediate invasion of Mongolia (They firmly believe it is part of China, just as much as Taiwan or Tibet);
Insisting on extending the mandatory political indoctrination for college students (kind of a live in boot camp focused on the history of the PLA) be extended from 14 days to a month or more;
Responding to an economic downturn by reversing all liberalisations and recollectivising large parts of Chinese society;
Being infiltrated by FLG, overthrowing the state, or large parts of it, and building heaven on earth, with Li HongZhi or whoever as the new godhead. We all know how those sorts of revolutions turn out.
I would love to see the PLA disturbed by being exposed to a dialogue about freedom, liberal democracy, libertarianism, and fundamental rights. Rabid Chinese nationalism, dressed up with some Buddhist cladding, not so much.