Freshly out of today’s NYT. It’s interesting to see how “All shall be equal” plays such a heavy role in the leftist socialist-leaning group’s argument. I wonder what would have happened if there was an election. If the candidate promise to restore the old “all is equal” social dynamic, will the majority of the countrymen/countrywomen understand what they really meant was “all is equally poor?” Will China fare better than the US election? I wonder.
The tensions reflect rising concern that breakneck growth averaging nearly 10 percent annually over 20 years has left China richer but also dirtier and, by the standards of the one-party state, politically volatile.
Corruption, pollution, land seizures and arbitrary fees and taxes are among the leading causes of a surge in social unrest. Riots have become a fixture of rural life in China â€” more than 200 “mass incidents of unrest” occurred each day in 2004, police statistics show â€” undermining the party’s insistence on social stability.
Many Western and some Chinese experts have argued that these problems stem from China’s authoritarian political system, and that they will not easily go away until people have a greater say in how they are governed. But the Communist Party and many left-leaning scholars reject that view. They say the ills are caused by capitalist excesses and rising inequality, which they say requires that the government reassert itself in economic affairs.
See full article here: New York Times: A Sharp Debate Erupts in China Over Ideologies, By JOSEPH KAHN, Published: March 12, 2006