In the meantime, I saw a great movie called Up The Yangtze the other day.  It’s a documentary about the current state of the Yangtze river and the impact the construction of the Three Gorges dam is having on the population living around the river.  I highly recommend seeing the movie - it’s extremely informational.

Perhaps of most interest to me was Mann’s chapter about the middle class. Mann argues that while most people feel that the fast growing middle class of China will be the proponents of change for democracy in China – in between their Starbucks latte’s and Big Macs, the middle class will be looking to introduce democracy into China – this is in fact a misconception.

If you look at the demographics of China, there are only about 62 million people who are living in the first and second tier cities, which make up just under 5% of the population (this is the middle class of China). It is these 62 million people who are buying Starbucks and whom outsiders believe want democracy.

Mann counters that with the introduction of democracy, there would have to be a political party who caters to the poor of China. This party and its’ leader would have no choice but to create policies that benefit the poor but negatively impact the middle class of China.

The poor population dwarfs the middle class population of China by a ratio of at least 4 to 1, so if democracy was introduced into China, and a political party who catered to the poor rather than the rich did come into existence, this party would win an election by a landslide. This would immediately change the lives of the Starbucks sipping middle class for the worse, as the policies to help the poor would hurt everyone else.

Mann concludes that while it may seem like the middle class will be the driving force to introduce democracy into China, the reality is that as long as the middle class continues to grow and prosper under the current regime, they will support the one party rule rather than a democratic movement.

I highly recommend this book if you have even the slightest interest about China.

In not so many words, China said that these acts are not welcome by the Chinese Government - but what could the Chinese really do?

Well, recently there has been some trouble with US Naval ships docking in China - three ships have been denied access to the naval port in Hong Kong. The Chinese government has come out and said that these denials, which were first declared a miscommunication, were a direct result of George Bush meeting with the Dali Lama and selling military arms to Taiwan.

There has been a ton of articles about the denial of access on the New York Times website (here, here, here, here and here), and there is another informative article on Bloomberg.

It will be interesting to see where this goes, and what, if any, actions happen to Canada.

Below is an excerpt from the translated version, for the full version please visit Shanghaiist.

1. Regarding Sun’s first point, I believe that he has ignored a very crucial fact—the growing gap between rich and poor. 20% of the population controls 80% of the wealth, how can you say that such a status quo has “flexibility”? While Professor Sun divides the population into urban and rural, does he mean that the urban poor ought to shoulder the burden of the rural poor? They [the urban poor] think of themselves as victims! Can we really continue to ignore them? The greater the income inequality, the less “elasticity” the society has.

2. Regarding Sun’s second point, I believe that he ignores two problems:

Firstly, is there really a fully functioning market economy? The current market is ruled by the powerful — must we continue to ignore this fact, even while it increases social tension and conflict?

Secondly, is it really true that social discontent is not directed against the government? Is there no relation between social problems and the government? Ask those that have been laid off from state-owned enterprises, or those peasants that have been forced to relocate their homes, ask them who they blame. The problem cannot be reduced into a small conflict between labor and capital in some small area. We have to squarely face the problems and tension that exists between the government and the people, because the government’s legitimacy rests on how well it solves or deals with these problems. This applies both to the central as well as provincial and local governments. If the government’s interest continues to clash with that of the people, the crisis will only deepen.

3. Does Professor Sun really believe that economic development has solved a lot of problems? Then how come the reforms of education and medical care seem only to get worse? On what issues have there been actual, substantial improvements that have increased social stability? Are there really many new opportunities for people? If so, why does it seems as if only the stock market and the housing prices are rising? How come there don’t seem to be opportunities in other fields? It seems a bit simplistic to believe that economic growth can somehow magically solve other problems.

4. The government does, as Professor Sun suggests, control enough resources. However, it’s a pity that some of the resources they control go to things other than public expenses, such as “face projects” or the use of public funds for travel and dining. In fact, these resources are now being abused as the government uses them towards its advantage, against the interests of the people. Rather than being a tool for reducing social strife, it has in fact created and increased the amount of social strife. Obviously, the less you are able to supervise or control the government’s use of resources,the more likely it is that you will infringe on the rights of individuals, thus increasing social tensions. Without any mechanism to control or limit the government’spower, it is quite likely that the government will lose the trust of the people, and once that happens, and things slip out of control, you can bet that large-scale unrest could very easily become a possibility. This isn’t meant to scare anyone, but as a statement of fact. Is not Professor Sun’s point here a bit lacking in analysis?

5. That society has become more stratified and segmented is a fact, but that does not make the formation of an oppositional group impossible. If the present gap between rich and poor continues to grow, then society will be divided into haves and have-nots, and although the have-nots are economically disadvantaged, those that find themselves in a similar lot will eventually band and speak out together, and ultimately will attempt to use their numerical advantage to wrest political control from the govenrment — at that point, it is entirely possible that there will be mass action.

6. Regarding Sun’s sixth point: it is true, many social elites have been bought off. However, mass action doesn’t necessarily require the participation of social elites. Large-scale social unrest often happens because social tension reaches a certain degree that cannot be solved through normal means, and when the boiling point is reached, the tension will erupt into the open and do great damage to society.

7. Regarding Sun’s seventh point, it’s true that while many people do buy the rhetoric of the market, there are still greater numbers of people that believe that “you have to have a good father if you want a good job” or “if you want to make it rich you have to curry favor with important officials.” Those that know that you need a “good father” or connections to officials are not going to believe that there lot in life is due to their lack of ability. Their discontent will naturally be aimed at society.

8. Regarding Sun’s eight point: I’m not sure what “experience” Professor Sun is pointing to here. Perhaps those laid-off workers and workers are most clear about what kind of treatment they’ve received.

9. Professor Sun believes that nowadays, most conflicts are just purely non-ideological and apolitical conflicts of interest. I believe this is an overly reductive way of looking at things. Most of the problems in contemporary China result from political inequality; the most serious problems come about because the undue concentration of power leads to the abuse of that power. Of course we can’t really blame Professor Sun; he spends most of his time on campus teaching where he can’t see these things happening.