Huge growth in Chinese Civil Unrest

[Androsphinx]

Apparently, nothing at all to do with the huge male/female disparity, and the huge number of young single men...

Indeed, official media channels can no longer hide (and perhaps no longer want to hide) the rising instances of social unrest. These instances are the most tangible signs of an increasingly disgruntled population.

Social unrest in China: Officially reported instances of social unrest (involving 15 or more people) have risen from 8700 in 1993 to 87,000 in 2005 (the latest available figures). This is about 240 instances each day.

The first important point about the rising instances of social unrest is that it indicates a citizenry that is increasingly defiant or unafraid of the authoritarian coercive apparatus. This means the level of discontent is so profound that the protesters no longer care about the consequences of unrest or that the regime's ability to enforce compliance and order has been seriously compromised.

As the truth is undoubtedly a combination of both, this is worrying news for any authoritarian government.

Second, although indicators are that millions have been saved from poverty under World Bank standards of $US1 a day, this statistic must be tempered by the fact social and financial safety nets (such as health, education and welfare) have been greatly reduced during the reform period. For example, a recent UN study estimated that out-of-pocket spending on health care in China has almost doubled as a percentage of total health expenditure from 1980 to 2002, from 36 per cent to 68 per cent. Meanwhile, government spending in the same period has been reduced from 32 per cent to 15 per cent.

Much progress was made from 1979 to the mid-1980s. Since then, of the approximately 900 million peasants, about 400 million have seen their incomes stagnate or decline during the past decade.

Third, the political danger is not just the growing divide between China's minority privileged classes and the rest (most of which are desperately poor) - although this is in itself a genuinely tragic humanitarian crisis - but that most of the cases, and the worst cases, of unrest are directed towards local authorities and officials. In other words, the problem is seen to emanate from the government and a connection is made between the regime and the hardships the general population face.

This is not surprising, as most cases involve frustrations caused by corrupt officials, arbitrary and repressive taxes and land grabs from officials, unpaid benefits or loss of rights against official bodies, non-enforcement of laws by authorities and courts, lay-offs of workers by the state, use of thugs by local officials to demand compliance, and the like.

Even though they control about two-thirds of government revenue collection (with the central Government receiving about one-third), local officials do not deliver services that are relied on by the masses because of insufficient budgeting, corruption or incompetence. When local officials want more money, they simply collect more taxes or fees. In rural areas, because all village land is ostensibly collectively owned, the lack of clear and definable property rights allows greedy local officials to effectively make decisions as to how the land is used, distributed, sold, developed and so on. The regime is intrinsically culpable. The frustrations cannot be dismissed as unruly citizens fighting among themselves or as a result of racial or intra-provincial tensions, as the central leadership attempts to do.

Fourth, the size of instances of unrest is growing and can be frightening. For example, in cases recently documented for 2003, a mob of 50,000 torched police cars in Chongqing to protest against the beating of a migrant worker; 100,000 stormed a government building and forced the postponement of a dam project in Sichuan due to inadequate compensation; 20,000 miners and their families rioted against lay-offs and the loss of their pensions.

Other recent instances of unrest include 80,000 retired workers who protested in China's northeast over unpaid pensions in 2002; 30,000 rioting over exorbitant bridge tolls issued by local authorities in 2004; 7000 textile workers protesting after being forbidden to form their own union in the Shaanxi province in 2004. Of the 74,000 instances recorded in 2004, 17 involved 10,000 or more people, 46 involved 5000 or more people and 120 involved 1000 or more people. That order was restored only after martial law was implemented in many of these cases highlights the seriousness of the problem. Even for the smaller incidents, the numerous anecdotal accounts of protesters violently targeting or resisting authorities speaks volumes about the crumbling regard for the "people's" party.

[K. A. Pital]

Much progress was made from 1979 to the mid-1980s. Since then, of the approximately 900 million peasants, about 400 million have seen their incomes stagnate or decline during the past decade.

Hmm. So it seems a large part of China's population was slowly being made more poor through the reforms, which led to the current situation. This is also why this protest is delayed, since the decline was slow and did not immediately lead to severe social catastrophy after the reforms.

[PainRack]

This isn't new.. in the late eighties and nineties, unrest was first experienced when inflation threatened social stability, indeed, it was behind this bedrock of inflation wiping out rural income that Tiananmen occured. Then the rich poor gap also caused similar backlash against the government in the late nineties.

[hongi]

And for those who like to wank to China as the next superpower, I have four words: civil unrest, corruption, pollution.

[Stravo]

And for those who like to wank to China as the next superpower, I have four words: civil unrest, corruption, pollution.

The US had that and a war going on in the 60's and we did just fine.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Do you really believe that the People's Republic of China's unrest is comparable? We had at least ostensibly democratic institutions. The air in our cities wouldn't literally kill you. The government was covering up everyday antibiotics in the pharmacies actually being toxic snake oil that'll kill your kids. And we didn't have the GDP of Italy with nearly a third of the world population.

[That NOS Guy]

The US had that and a war going on in the 60's and we did just fine.

That's true to a certain extent, the amount of extent is the killer here though. For example, in the US civil unrest at it's ugliest is showcased in things like Watts. The sixties was an ugly decade, but for the US it kinda pales in comparison over 17 instances since 2004 involving 10K or more (and many other sizeable smaller ones) that had to be put down with martial law.

[K. A. Pital]

On the other hand, 10K is a very small fraction for China. To run a revolution, they'd need at least several million strong civil unrest. Something like 6-10% of the population can successfully accomplish an initial revolt which is evident from history. They need new Tiananmen-level protests.

[Stravo]

The US had that and a war going on in the 60's and we did just fine.

That's true to a certain extent, the amount of extent is the killer here though. For example, in the US civil unrest at it's ugliest is showcased in things like Watts. The sixties was an ugly decade, but for the US it kinda pales in comparison over 17 instances since 2004 involving 10K or more (and many other sizeable smaller ones) that had to be put down with martial law.

True the scale is much larger in terms of numbers but then again in a country the size of China I would expect large civil unrest to make the US's look pale in comparison.

The point I'm trying to make is that this seems to be par for the course for any great power/society that enters into a new era or is going through growing pains. IP's points about the severity of China's issues in comparison to the US's go hand in hand with the factor that the US is a democracy (or democracy-like) as opposed to the authoritarian regime of China that only exaserbates the response to the issues. These clowns in power seem to only understand military response. However even with a free society and democratic institutions we still had martial responses of our own to protests such as we saw in Kent State.

I would say the US had all these issues on its plate during the 60's - admittedly on a smaller scale. Pollution reared its ugly head with things like Love Canal. We had an entire segment of the population clamoring for equal rights and we certainly haven't seen anything like MLK's March on Washington mirrored in Beijing since Tianamen Are there swaths of major cities burned out for decades like what happened in Watts and other parts of the urban centers of the US?

Before we go around pointing the finger at China and claiming these are reasons why they can't be a great power or tsk tsking them let's try to bear our own history in mind. I think anyone who wants to deny China a place at the big boys' table at this point is being a little self deluded.

[Gil Hamilton]

On the other hand, 10K is a very small fraction for China. To run a revolution, they'd need at least several million strong civil unrest. Something like 6-10% of the population can successfully accomplish an initial revolt which is evident from history. They need new Tiananmen-level protests.

They seem to be getting there. One instance of civil unrest had 100,000 workers storming a government building because they weren't getting paid, according to the article. That's like a third of my hometown rioting.

[Sidewinder]

Here's hoping China's problems will be peacefully resolved, or...

If the PRC goes the way of the USSR, there will be tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions of refugees running around in search of food, shelter, and work. Can Russia deal with this number of refugees? Can Japan? Can the US?

[That NOS Guy]

True the scale is much larger in terms of numbers but then again in a country the size of China I would expect large civil unrest to make the US's look pale in comparison.

It's not even just the numbers that are the factor, it's the fact that they're being put down with marital law. I expect the numbers to be higher, but goddamn.

The point I'm trying to make is that this seems to be par for the course for any great power/society that enters into a new era or is going through growing pains. IP's points about the severity of China's issues in comparison to the US's go hand in hand with the factor that the US is a democracy (or democracy-like) as opposed to the authoritarian regime of China that only exaserbates the response to the issues. These clowns in power seem to only understand military response. However even with a free society and democratic institutions we still had martial responses of our own to protests such as we saw in Kent State.

I think it's a fair point to argue that there's going to upheavel in any new era. The question is if China can sustain it's growth while continuing to ignore the problems. It's already getting to the point where it's becoming unavoidable and must be dealt with, but the PRC seems to be maintaining the status quo which will only lead to more violence until they get to the point of open revolt by the mass of peasantry.

It's interesting that you invoke Kent State. Yes, the US did in fact use lethal force in that instance. However, how much of that was an accident as opposed to deliberate? More to the point, Kent State serves as a very bloody exception to the rule. In China it seems lethal force and crackdowns are a rule rather then the exception.

I would say the US had all these issues on its plate during the 60's - admittedly on a smaller scale. Pollution reared its ugly head with things like Love Canal. We had an entire segment of the population clamoring for equal rights and we certainly haven't seen anything like MLK's March on Washington mirrored in Beijing since Tianamen Are there swaths of major cities burned out for decades like what happened in Watts and other parts of the urban centers of the US?

Before we go around pointing the finger at China and claiming these are reasons why they can't be a great power or tsk tsking them let's try to bear our own history in mind. I think anyone who wants to deny China a place at the big boys' table at this point is being a little self deluded.

I'd like to note that a place at the big boy's table is a place you take, rather then are given

But yeah, I agree with you that all of these problems did historically exist, but in the US they were solved (or at least some headway was made into the problems) once they became public.

As bad as things like Love Canal were, there are worse things afoot in China. The cancer villages just seem to grow in number day to day. China's Sorrow (the Yellow River) runs dry part of the year, etc. but the government just doesn't want to react. Sure they talk a lot, but the envornment just seems to suffer more and more.

If in order to continue their growth they have to keep disregarding environmental safeties how long can it be before the damage becomes irreversable? I have my serious doubts that China can attack that problem, continue to economically grow, and fend off other issues all at once.

They still have a long way to go until they become a superpower, and ignoring the problems of the population bottleneck, massive poverty, govermental overhaul, etc. The sheer pollution culd have an effect of stunting any rise.

[Coriolis]

Here's hoping China's problems will be peacefully resolved, or...

If the PRC goes the way of the USSR, there will be tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions of refugees running around in search of food, shelter, and work. Can Russia deal with this number of refugees? Can Japan? Can the US?

Well, I'm hoping that China will realize how bad it would look if it tried another Tiananmen. And if it did happen, many Chinese are too poor to afford passage out of the country.

[PainRack]

I think it's a fair point to argue that there's going to upheavel in any new era. The question is if China can sustain it's growth while continuing to ignore the problems. It's already getting to the point where it's becoming unavoidable and must be dealt with, but the PRC seems to be maintaining the status quo which will only lead to more violence until they get to the point of open revolt by the mass of peasantry.

You need to define maintaining the status quo here. The Communist Party has been attempting any kind of reform that will help maintain social stability, as long as it does not threaten its own grip on power. Massive attacks on corruption, pollution, and new environmental policies are on the cards. The problem rests in passive or even active resistance amongst the officials towards certain reforms and policies, or even just plain simple covering up so as to maintain their own base of power or save face.

Furthermore, the issue of the unemployed as well as the rich poor gap has always been at the forefront of Chinese policy along with other social issues such as prostitution, drug abuse, the oncoming AIDS epidemic and etc..... As can be seen, the problem arises because of the sheer number and scope of issues any Chinese government has to face, on top of current issues such as the economy and chinese political prestige, vital to securing their own grip on power.

As bad as things like Love Canal were, there are worse things afoot in China. The cancer villages just seem to grow in number day to day. China's Sorrow (the Yellow River) runs dry part of the year, etc. but the government just doesn't want to react. Sure they talk a lot, but the envornment just seems to suffer more and more.

The water issue is plain, simply unsolvable. You cannot run a modern city with modern industry without draining the aquifers dry, not with China population density. If we were to look at desertification projects as well as an upcoming policy vis a vs wastage of agricultural land, they are trying...... Its just not working due to the massive scale and lack of expertise on the part of chinese officials.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Before we go around pointing the finger at China and claiming these are reasons why they can't be a great power or tsk tsking them let's try to bear our own history in mind. I think anyone who wants to deny China a place at the big boys' table at this point is being a little self deluded.

But what does the big boys' table mean? They hold a permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council, a staple of significant power-status. They are a global consumer of commodities of the first rank, a major arms manufacturer and exporter, they lead in population. In GDP/capita, military spending/capita etc. they still don't remotely compare to the parity held by the two superpowers during the bipolar Cold War era. They are most definitely not a superpower. A regional power, certainly. But there remains no immediate, major challengers to the monopolar world dominated by the U.S. hyperpower. But to say there's been some major shift in the last decade or so, is silly. This is only true in certain aspects of commerce.

[Ritterin Sophia]

The US is a Superpower, China is a Great Power.

Also, the difference between the Social unrest of the 60's and China's is that in the 60's we weren't losing twenty natural lakes, arable land decreases 300-600k hectares, natural grasslands dissappear at a rate of 600-750k hectares, and deserts didnt expand 3436 square km anually. Link

[Sikon]

China is an increasing major power, not quite yet fulfilling the definition of a superpower but headed in that direction.

For example, for annual GDP (PPP), the two greatest entities in the world are the U.S. and European Union at $13 trillion each, followed by China at $10 trillion, followed by Japan at $4 trillion, while all other countries are less. For perspective, the most for an individual European country in PPP terms is Germany at $2.6 trillion.

While the U.S. and the European Union (coincidentally) both had about 3% real GDP growth in 2006, China's was the exceptional figure of 11%. Though not always quite that high, China has sustained similarly exceptional growth rates during the past couple of decades, managing such so far despite social and environmental troubles. That's a difference suggesting in not many years China may have a greater economy than even the U.S. in purchasing power parity terms, in large part enabled by having quadruple the population.

As another example, one of many indicators of basic industrial capability, during the recent month of August, China produced 42 million tons of steel (out of 109 million tons total worldwide), greater than any other entity, such as compared to the European Union producing 15 million tons.

Discretionary income is less than the preceding figures alone would indicate, especially when so much is involved in meeting basic needs alone, with China's GDP per person being still multiple times less than that for the populations of prosperous first-world countries. And there are exceptional income disparities and variation between different areas of the large country (960,000,000 hectares area). But the preceding shows the general idea.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

[quote="PainRack]
The water issue is plain, simply unsolvable. You cannot run a modern city with modern industry without draining the aquifers dry, not with China population density. If we were to look at desertification projects as well as an upcoming policy vis a vs wastage of agricultural land, they are trying...... Its just not working due to the massive scale and lack of expertise on the part of chinese officials.[/quote]

They could, however, attempt to reduce water pollution and stop arresting environmentalists and stuff their heads into their ass and dragging their feet when it comes to it. Water pollution in China's rivers is excessively bad with tonnes of algae blooms.

[Jadeite]

And for those who like to wank to China as the next superpower, I have four words: civil unrest, corruption, pollution.

The US had that and a war going on in the 60's and we did just fine.

The US didn't have to deal with the problem of 150 million environmental refugees. I'll post some excerpts from a Spiegel interview with a Chinese Ministry of the Environment official.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spi ... 94,00.html

Pan: Many factors are coming together here: Our raw materials are scarce, we don't have enough land, and our population is constantly growing. Currently, there are 1.3 billion people living in China, that's twice as many as 50 years ago. In 2020, there will be 1.5 billion people in China. Cities are growing but desert areas are expanding at the same time; habitable and usable land has been halved over the past 50 years.

*snip*

Pan: It's massive. Because air and water are polluted, we are losing between 8 and 15 percent of our gross domestic product. And that doesn't include the costs for health. Then there's the human suffering: In Bejing alone, 70 to 80 percent of all deadly cancer cases are related to the environment. Lung cancer has emerged as the No. 1 cause of death.

*snip*

Pan: Even now, the western regions of China and the country's ecologically stressed regions can no longer support the people already living there. In the future, we will need to resettle 186 million residents from 22 provinces and cities. However, the other provinces and cities can only absorb some 33 million people. That means China will have more than 150 million ecological migrants, or, if you like, environmental refugees.


*snip*

Pan: There won't be enough money, and we are simply running out of time. Developed countries with a per capita gross national product of $8,000 to $10,000 can afford that, but we cannot. Before we reach $4,000 per person, different crises in all shapes and forms will hit us. Economically we won't be strong enough to overcome them.

In the long run, it'd be smarter to bet on China going through intense and crippling internal upheaval than it would be to bet on it reaching superpower status. It's simply too big for its own good.

[Illuminatus Primus]

While the U.S. and the European Union (coincidentally) both had about 3% real GDP growth in 2006, China's was the exceptional figure of 11%. Though not always quite that high, China has sustained similarly exceptional growth rates during the past couple of decades, managing such so far despite social and environmental troubles.

You mean by causing and increasing the severity of those troubles. When your whole country zilch for industrialization and modernity, its easy to grow; its called playing catch up. But those environmental troubles will check it. Where exactly will they get the requisite energy over the next two decades to grow at this rate, sustained?

[Pelranius]

Well, what China is going through right now sounds a lot like America industrializing after the Civil War with the robber barons, labor unrest popping up left and right and all that. I wonder if we shall see splits in the CCP hierarchy sometime soon (between the neo Maoists and the "mainstream "elements)

[Elaro]

Corruption at the local level, eh? Both the Central government and the people want to stop that? If the CG can't do anything about local corruption, maybe it could run arms to local militias so they can overthrow their corrupt local officials?

... That's a funny image.

Although seriously, the only way to avoid deep corruption is to have local democracy-like governments run by the citizens themselves, who then report to the Central Government. That way, corruption is theoretically a non-existant problem (the practical solving of which would only require citizen participation), the people are rid of their tyrants and the guys at the top get to keep their power (until the local government demand elected officials in power; but that may be a whiles off). Is this (at least somewhat) likely to work?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Corruption at the local level, eh? Both the Central government and the people want to stop that? If the CG can't do anything about local corruption, maybe it could run arms to local militias so they can overthrow their corrupt local officials?

... That's a funny image.

Although seriously, the only way to avoid deep corruption is to have local democracy-like governments run by the citizens themselves, who then report to the Central Government. That way, corruption is theoretically a non-existant problem (the practical solving of which would only require citizen participation), the people are rid of their tyrants and the guys at the top get to keep their power (until the local government demand elected officials in power; but that may be a whiles off). Is this (at least somewhat) likely to work?

Democracy won't solve the problem. Rule of law in China remains woefully weak. The Law is rewritten, or ignored as and when the Communist Party sees fit to. The Communist Party remains and still is, as autocratic as ever.

[K. A. Pital]

I'd say the rule of law is okay in China. It's just that the law isn't exactly well-fit for protecting a large part of the population. Thus a rift arises between the perceived goals of communist party (equality, prosperity for all) and a real situation where people in China are pauperized while party bosses slowly, but steadily turn into capitalists and accumulate wealth.

[PainRack]

They could, however, attempt to reduce water pollution and stop arresting environmentalists and stuff their heads into their ass and dragging their feet when it comes to it. Water pollution in China's rivers is excessively bad with tonnes of algae blooms.

And water pollution only forms PART of the problem.For example, one of the current problem facing Beijing is the fact that her piping system is old and in badly need of maintenance, leaking precious water into the ground.

The obvious solution would be to repair and rebuild it, but the money as well as the oppurtinity isn't available as there isn't any spare capacity. This is just one of MANY problems facing China water supply. Closing down polluting factories and rebuilding them is obviously one of the solutions to water pollution, but can you do that without laying off workers? Whcih leads to labour unrest and other social issues and unstability.

Is it any wonder then that facing unworkable issues, many Chinese officials choose the easier method of blaming the messenger?