Resolves to the first year when the CCP is not in control of China.
1,000
3.00@JonathanRay Even for a year or so after the wall came down. Everyone thought Gorbechev would continue to pursue his policies of glasnost and perestroika, but instead Yeltsin launched a coup while Gorbachev was vacationing in Crimea and we ended up on our current timeline with Putin as a result. Otherwise things could have been very different and maybe Russia would be more friendly with if not a part of Europe today.
@duck_master No Chinese government has survived 100 years for something like 800 years. It is and always has been a country led by local warlords that sometimes get along and sometimes don't. Regional factions of today's CCP are still not entirely under Xi control but rather their factional leader. Jiang Zemin's death changed the dynamics a bit but the CCP grip on power is much more fragile than your statement implies.
@duck_master And the CCP has been "around" since the 1920s, it only won the civil war and formed a government in 1949.
No Chinese government has survived 100 years for something like 800 years.
Wasn't the Qing Dynasty around from 1644 to 1912 (at least officially)? That's like two and a half centuries.
@duck_master The empire ebbed and flowed with many rebellions and break aways and only about 50 years of consolidated rule. But yes the dynasty survived longer than a single century. Also remember China as it is today looks very different than it did up until WWII. More of the world did for that matter.
@ShadowyZephyr Well the CCP literally conquered china by force & instituted a one party state that never had free and fair elections
@JonathanRay Why do you assume whatever government takes them over will be any better, though? Lots of countries have one party systems.
America was conquered by force and has a 2 party system, which admittedly is better than 1 party system, but not as much better as people seem to think.
@JonathanRay This is not exactly true. All local politicians like mayors are elected. It’s only the party level officials, who actually aren’t part of the “government” at all, that aren’t elected. There is a hard separation of party and state in China, they are NOT the same thing.
@JonathanRay in fact, I believe the only individual who straddles both realms is Xi. But his title as President of China is below his title of Party Chairman.
@ShadowyZephyr No. China was not China before the revolution, it was a bunch of different province each run with complete autonomy by warlords.
The US government as it currently exists was not created until AFTER the revolution. In fact, the first iteration, the articles of confederation, was scrapped and replaced by the constitution.
@ShadowyZephyr The CCP did win a civil war against the nationalists. But that was after they fought together to repel the Japanese.
@BTE Most of the US was purchased or voluntarily annexed by treaties. If Russian backed trumpists successfully overthrew the government of the US by force and imposed a one party dictatorship then you could compare the US to china.
@JonathanRay I am totally agreeing that comparing US and China is like Apples and Basketballs. Not even the same category.
@BTE There’s a flimsy de jure separation of party and state, but in practice you need to be a member in good standing of the communist party to run for office and if you run a political campaign for anything that the communist party disagrees with they’ll throw you in a gulag.
@JonathanRay Unfortunately, there are no longer internal factions in the CCP like there always had been pre-Xi. So diversity of opinion has never been more scarce.
@BTE That is true, but I don't see how it's relevant at all. Whether China was unified or not beforehand was not my point. I'm just saying America was conquered by force by the United States rebels, before that it belonged to the British. It being conquered by force doesn't have much to do with the oppression and censorship of the CCP currently.
@BTE what do you mean there is a hard separation of party and state? (Not trying to gotcha or something, it's just hard to see how you could believe the most obvious interpretation of your words)
@JoshuaWilkes I mean, as @JonathanRay noted, officially speaking that is how it is designed. However, Xi has largely dismantled this to separation to eliminate competing factions from government.
@BTE So I'm not trying to trap you in semantics, but I really don't think that saying there is a de jure separation but de facto the party exerts full control of state apparatus is the same as saying there is total separation of party and state.
@JoshuaWilkes Well party jobs and state jobs are completely separate. But I think I am agreeing with you. China is complicated and previous generations were not like Xi.