Haven't read the book but I wonder how it handles Tiananmen. The review explicitly says it is not defending Deng's actions but it does defend his intentions: the massacre (and by extension PRC...
Haven't read the book but I wonder how it handles Tiananmen. The review explicitly says it is not defending Deng's actions but it does defend his intentions: the massacre (and by extension PRC violence and human rights abuses against democrats in general) is presented not as an autocratic reflex at self-preservation but rather as a high minded and well intentioned effort at avoiding "chaos". The standard apologetics are trotted out to explain the view that Chinese people are uniquely ill-suited for democracy (cf. excuses for why Arabs and Muslims shouldn't be allowed to have democracy either) and these are presented without criticism.
In fact, the view of this review/book (hard to separate them, I suppose) feels like the standard cliche about PRC leadership: that despite a thousands year global history of kings and dictators and the systems that support them pointing to these individuals and power structures ultimately acting for reasons of self-preservation and self-interest, we are supposed to believe the fairy tale that the leaders of the PRC are different—agree with them or disagree with them, they are merely public servants acting as long-term–thinking technocratic philospher-kings. I'm not knowledgeable enough on the topic to really know what motivates Deng, Xi, etc. but this view is common enough among powerful people in the west to be troubling. Just look at this 2013 quote from now-PM Justin Trudeau:
The Liberal leader was asked which nation he admired most. He responded: "There's a level of admiration I actually have for China. Their basic dictatorship is actually allowing them to turn their economy around on a dime."
On the face of it a major party leader on track to become PM of a democracy might not be expected to praise the utility of a "basic dictatorship" but it makes sense. There's a dark appeal to leaders (or to anyone whose favourite leader holds power) in the idea of rising above the "chaos" of democracy to simply do what they know to be right without the ignorant masses stymieing their every move. That's a cornerstone of Chinese soft-power, I think: to represent a wise and thoughtful and stable system of government that doesn't have to worry about the sort of people who vote for Trump or Brexit.
It's a pernicious idea that I worry will take hold this century. People are ready for change and they're upset with the current global systems, and crises like climate change and increasing wealth disparity will push them even further. Neo-liberal technocrats like Trudeau are already sympathetic to these ideas (though, to be clear, I wouldn't call him undemocratic). Certain online-left spaces* praise the PRC, Mao, and Xi (and ironically condemn Deng while defending the Tiananmen massacre). The right... well, while they don't necessarily like the PRC specifically their recent problems with authoritarian tendencies need no introduction.
I suppose my point in all this is that we should be careful about what we think and accept without question when it comes to the PRC. We shouldn't automatically condemn them (and we should also be sure to make a clear distinction between the PRC, China, and the people of China) but we should also not fall for the standard excuses for their authoritarian violence, either. There's a war of ideas coming and we should keep our heads about us.
* These spaces, like /r/ChapoTrapHouse, aren't exactly politically relevant but I think interesting comparisons can be made between them and 2nChan / the alt-right before they entered the mainstream. They have similar meme-based "lol I was only joking" calls for violence and there's an undercurrent of disaffected young men eager to destroy a corrupt social order†—not to mention a number of users who admit to recently being alt-right before making the leap to the 'tankie'-left.
† "But they just want to end capitalism and we should do that." Yeah, okay, that's a different debate. But the amount of praise I've seen in those spaces for Mao, Stalin, the modern DPRK, etc. makes me not eager to see what they'd like to replace it with.
Well, that's the problem with relying on book reviews written by random people on the Internet. History done right is based on gathering and interpreting evidence, and we're two steps removed from...
Well, that's the problem with relying on book reviews written by random people on the Internet. History done right is based on gathering and interpreting evidence, and we're two steps removed from the evidence. Unless someone is actually curious enough to go deeper, our judgements about plausible motives of previous Chinese leaders will inevitably be distorted.
Unfortunately, I don't think we can do much about memes being shared around the Internet, either, other than banning inline images in forums where we want to have thoughtful discussion.
Nevertheless, there is no understanding modern China without understanding Deng: Deng, probably more than anybody else -- probably more than Mao, really -- created the modern nation of skyscrapers, high-speed trains and ruthless markets.
Haven't read the book but I wonder how it handles Tiananmen. The review explicitly says it is not defending Deng's actions but it does defend his intentions: the massacre (and by extension PRC violence and human rights abuses against democrats in general) is presented not as an autocratic reflex at self-preservation but rather as a high minded and well intentioned effort at avoiding "chaos". The standard apologetics are trotted out to explain the view that Chinese people are uniquely ill-suited for democracy (cf. excuses for why Arabs and Muslims shouldn't be allowed to have democracy either) and these are presented without criticism.
In fact, the view of this review/book (hard to separate them, I suppose) feels like the standard cliche about PRC leadership: that despite a thousands year global history of kings and dictators and the systems that support them pointing to these individuals and power structures ultimately acting for reasons of self-preservation and self-interest, we are supposed to believe the fairy tale that the leaders of the PRC are different—agree with them or disagree with them, they are merely public servants acting as long-term–thinking technocratic philospher-kings. I'm not knowledgeable enough on the topic to really know what motivates Deng, Xi, etc. but this view is common enough among powerful people in the west to be troubling. Just look at this 2013 quote from now-PM Justin Trudeau:
On the face of it a major party leader on track to become PM of a democracy might not be expected to praise the utility of a "basic dictatorship" but it makes sense. There's a dark appeal to leaders (or to anyone whose favourite leader holds power) in the idea of rising above the "chaos" of democracy to simply do what they know to be right without the ignorant masses stymieing their every move. That's a cornerstone of Chinese soft-power, I think: to represent a wise and thoughtful and stable system of government that doesn't have to worry about the sort of people who vote for Trump or Brexit.
It's a pernicious idea that I worry will take hold this century. People are ready for change and they're upset with the current global systems, and crises like climate change and increasing wealth disparity will push them even further. Neo-liberal technocrats like Trudeau are already sympathetic to these ideas (though, to be clear, I wouldn't call him undemocratic). Certain online-left spaces* praise the PRC, Mao, and Xi (and ironically condemn Deng while defending the Tiananmen massacre). The right... well, while they don't necessarily like the PRC specifically their recent problems with authoritarian tendencies need no introduction.
I suppose my point in all this is that we should be careful about what we think and accept without question when it comes to the PRC. We shouldn't automatically condemn them (and we should also be sure to make a clear distinction between the PRC, China, and the people of China) but we should also not fall for the standard excuses for their authoritarian violence, either. There's a war of ideas coming and we should keep our heads about us.
* These spaces, like /r/ChapoTrapHouse, aren't exactly politically relevant but I think interesting comparisons can be made between them and 2nChan / the alt-right before they entered the mainstream. They have similar meme-based "lol I was only joking" calls for violence and there's an undercurrent of disaffected young men eager to destroy a corrupt social order†—not to mention a number of users who admit to recently being alt-right before making the leap to the 'tankie'-left.
† "But they just want to end capitalism and we should do that." Yeah, okay, that's a different debate. But the amount of praise I've seen in those spaces for Mao, Stalin, the modern DPRK, etc. makes me not eager to see what they'd like to replace it with.
Well, that's the problem with relying on book reviews written by random people on the Internet. History done right is based on gathering and interpreting evidence, and we're two steps removed from the evidence. Unless someone is actually curious enough to go deeper, our judgements about plausible motives of previous Chinese leaders will inevitably be distorted.
Unfortunately, I don't think we can do much about memes being shared around the Internet, either, other than banning inline images in forums where we want to have thoughtful discussion.
From the article: