Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Dr. Sun Yat-Sen’s legacy |
Post Reply 
|
Page 12> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|
flyingzone 
Caliph 
Joined: 11-Dec-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2630 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Dr. Sun Yat-Sen’s legacyPosted: 29-Dec-2005 at 15:00 |
|
|
This topic is inspired by Maju's post on "Today in History". What is Dr. Sun Yat-Sen's legacy in modern Chinese history? Is he indeed well-respected by people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait? Given the posthumous name "National Father", Dr. Sun has been accorded with a almost legendary status in modern Chinese history. But did he deserve the title? The episode of his promising General Yuan Shikai the presidency in return for Yuan's support of the revolution, was it one of an act of selflessness/altruism or one of a calculated (yet subsequently proven to be mistaken) political move? Would like to know more about the "Three Principles of the People" (nationalism, democracy, and socialism). How does Communist China justify its "respect" for these three principles but at the same time having such a dismal record in democracy? (I am sure they evoke the infamous principle of "Chinese style democracy".) And how do the Taiwanese people (not the "Mainlanders" but the "real" Taiwanese people), now that they have achieved democracy and wealth (i.e. "socialism", which is not the best translation for the original idea of Sun as far as I know), view the remaining of the three principles - "nationalism", given the growing independent movement on the island?
|
||
 |
||
|
Maju
King 
Joined: 14-Jul-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 6565 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Dec-2005 at 16:18 |
|
|
You don't understand Leninist concpets of "democracy" and
"dictatorship": according to this, democracy is people's government and
it isn't opposed to dictatorship of the proletariat - actually they are
synonims. That's why most Leninist states call themselves "People's
Republic" or "Democratic Republic". Instead western "democracy" is just
a cover of the "dictatorship of the burgueoise class" and it is not any
true democracy at all, as the rich capitalists control the media and
parties and all other resources that can give electoral victory to this
or that one in most cases. When their designs are contested by reality,
then Capitalism uncovers its true davilish face and stabilishes an
actual dictatorship, via internal or foreign military intervention.
You got the point, don't you? ... Regarding Socialism, the Kuomingtang always tried not to translate the concept that way. In any case you can understand it in the way fascists did: as a mere state oversight of normal Capitalist free market in order to prevent some worse situations of social imbalance or economical ineffectivity. |
||
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
||
|
||
|
Gubook Janggoon
Sultan 
Retired Global Moderator Joined: 08-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2187 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Dec-2005 at 16:36 |
|
|
Dr. Sun Yat-Sen had a lot of good ideas...but that was about it.
The man set up the ideological basis for modern China, but didn't exactly institute it. |
||
|
||
|
flyingzone
Caliph
Joined: 11-Dec-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2630 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Dec-2005 at 16:54 |
|
|
Thanks for the feedback, guys. But Maju, maybe I didn't put my question clearly enough. What I really want to know is: What were Dr. Sun's own ideas of nationalism, democracy, and socialism? I have a feeling that they must be quite different from our understanding of them from a modern and Western perspective.
|
||
|
||
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 6565 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Dec-2005 at 17:48 |
|
|
Just check Wikipedia: The Three Principles of the People and make up your mind.
 Anyhow Sun Yat-set was heavily influenced by western thought, which he absorbed when studying in Hawaii (I believe). He was particularly impressed by US ideologues such as Hamilton, Lincoln or Henry George, but he didn't despise either Montesquieu or Marx. According to his Wikipedia biography: He presented himself as a strident nationalist to the nationalists, as a socialist to the socialists, and an anarchist to the anarchists, declaring at one point that "the goal of the Three Principles of the People is to create socialism and anarchism." Edited by Maju |
||
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
||
|
||
|
flyingzone
Caliph
Joined: 11-Dec-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2630 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Dec-2005 at 17:52 |
|
|
Thanks Maju for the link. Very clear and concise explanations. Love Wikipedia!!!!
|
||
|
||
|
Genghis_Kan
Knight 
Joined: 01-Dec-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 58 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Jan-2006 at 17:40 |
|
|
Btw Sun Yat-Sen didn't have lots of good idea. Most of the his idea is copyed from somebody else. The democracy sh*t is copy and translate from the American. The Yat-Sen clothing is basically suit with few modification |
||
|
||
|
MengTzu
General 
Retired Moderator Joined: 11-Aug-2004 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 957 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jan-2006 at 17:00 |
|
Yat-Sen clothing seems like a combination of Manchu "long robe," Japanese uniforms and Western suits. |
||
(Credit to Cwyr and Gubookjanggoon for first using the sloganizer.) |
||
|
||
|
heyamigos
Samurai 
Joined: 31-Aug-2012 Online Status: Offline Posts: 126 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Aug-2012 at 07:38 |
|
|
Dr. Sun had lived in Hawaii for quite a period. His early concepts of democracy most certainly was of the American ideal. Even the Chinese flag he designed had the same 3 colors.
Now, the bigger question is: "Is Western style democracy feasible in China given its current development?"
|
||
|
||
|
Nick1986
Emperor 
Mighty Slayer of Trolls Joined: 22-Mar-2011 Location: England Online Status: Offline Posts: 7940 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Sep-2012 at 20:46 |
|
Probably not. It will take many more years before China is stable enough to begin democratising. If reforms are implemented too rapidly and the government becomes weak, China will stagnate and collapse like the USSR |
||
|
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
|
||
|
||
|
lirelou
Colonel 
Joined: 26-Mar-2009 Location: Tampa, FL Online Status: Offline Posts: 528 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Sep-2012 at 23:50 |
|
|
It helps to point out that Sun Yat-sen's wife and Chiang Kai-shek's wife were sisters, and both American educated.
As for democratising, China faces the same problem that Vietnam, and North Korea face. All have created single party states whose parties are tightly woven into the governmental fabric. In contrast, Singapore (a Chinese 'state' in fact, if not geography), Taiwan, and South Korea have always recognized the principle that the multiple political parties could exist, and were separate from government, even during the darker days when they effectively had a single dominant party that was, for all intents and purposes, the only one, while the minor ones were barely tolerated. Based on those two very different models, the single party states seemed doomed to suffer a great upheaval before their present single parties fall. Indeed, as long as they still control some elements of State power (i.e., the security police and ministries) and continue to occupy what should be government buildings, they will have strong reasons to oppose relinquishing power. However, the events in Burma (Myanmar) these days suggest that even a single Party state can readjust. However, multiple parties had existed in Burma prior to the military takeover, and as long as the military thought they could control their opposition, those parties were allowed to operate. I fear that China and Vietnam will not be so fortunate. FOr an interesting snapshot of Chiang's role in that process, see: http://www.economist.com/node/13606318
Edited by lirelou - 19-Sep-2012 at 00:01 |
||
|
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
|
||
|
||
|
Nick1986
Emperor
Mighty Slayer of Trolls Joined: 22-Mar-2011 Location: England Online Status: Offline Posts: 7940 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Sep-2012 at 20:04 |
|
|
The current situation in Russia will probably repeat itself in China when the Communists lose power: a period of anarchy followed by the emergence of an increasingly-authoritarian strongman
|
||
|
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
|
||
|
||
|
heyamigos
Samurai
Joined: 31-Aug-2012 Online Status: Offline Posts: 126 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Sep-2012 at 03:02 |
|
|
A lot also depends on how the West and international community reacts to your country's rise or political transition. Russia was never really welcomed into the democratic club because of the lingering fears of its continuing military threat (and economic too - some nations avoid buying Russian gas/oil). I feel it is the same with China. The world is not big enough for 2-3 hegemons. Encirclement is the name of the game when it comes to certain nations like China and Russia.
I highly doubt Chiang would have been any better than Mao in relations with the USA. Chiang had always had his suspicions with Americans even during the exile years in Taiwan. Had he continued to rule in China, the KMT would have continued its authoritarian rule too. It might morphed pretty similar to what it is now in Taiwan as well as the communists in mainland China. Multiple parties and elections would exist, but the military will continue to hold real behind the scenes power and influence.
|
||
|
||
|
lirelou
Colonel
Joined: 26-Mar-2009 Location: Tampa, FL Online Status: Offline Posts: 528 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Sep-2012 at 10:52 |
|
|
Heyamigos, I think there is little doubt that his rule in China would have continued to be authoritarian. Indeed, it was in Taiwan, and the first years of his rule there were bloody. I think that the challenges on the mainland may have resulted in a longer period of authoritarian rule. But Taiwan also shows what CKS was capable of. They resettled millions of refugees, built a modern nation while maintaining a strong defensive posture, and after building a strong economy, allowed politics to develop to the point that the Nationalist Party was not the only Party. So the key is: Can the Communist Party step back enough to allow competition for national power. Given the way the Parties in both China and Vietnam are structured, and how woven they are into people's daily lives (Vietnam more so than China after Tien An Ming), I don't see a peaceful transition as likely.
|
||
|
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
|
||
|
||
|
Nick1986
Emperor
Mighty Slayer of Trolls Joined: 22-Mar-2011 Location: England Online Status: Offline Posts: 7940 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Sep-2012 at 21:29 |
|
|
China is still getting over the last revolution 50 years ago. Without an authoritarian government it would slip back into anarchy, with rival warlords seeking power (as it was before the Chin emperor gained power)
|
||
|
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
|
||
|
||
|
lirelou
Colonel
Joined: 26-Mar-2009 Location: Tampa, FL Online Status: Offline Posts: 528 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Sep-2012 at 12:44 |
|
|
Nick In re your: "Without an authoritarian government it would slip back into anarchy, with rival warlords seeking power (as it was before the Chin emperor gained power),"
I find that a bit simplistic. First, the War Lord period was an understandable development of the last imperial dynasty, so it obviously will not repeat itself in the same way. Second, yes, an authoritarian government. Both Taiwan and Singapore's governments have been authoritarian along the way to their current state of development. However, they were authoritarian governments who recognized the principle of multi-party elections, even is such was lip service in gthe early years. The PRC has never done so. I think it safe to say that the PRC is more likely to fracture into blocks, with the PLA bloc playing the pivotal role. The PLA will not fracture into "war lords", but there will be internal divisions among military factions which will largely go unobserved by outsiders. Warlordism often resulted from a weak central leader who owed his position and power to strong regional military commanders who operated along semi-feudal principals. And at times, the 'war lords' ran better governments in their area than the nominal central government did. In China's early 20th century, the Republic absorbed regional militias and old imperial units and commanders into their structure that laid the basis for future friction. I believe we have mentioned Yuan Shi-kai in other threads, Le Van Duyet in 18th and 19th century Southern Vietnam played a similar role as emperor maker and challenger.
|
||
|
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
|
||
|
||
|
Nick1986
Emperor
Mighty Slayer of Trolls Joined: 22-Mar-2011 Location: England Online Status: Offline Posts: 7940 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Sep-2012 at 19:13 |
|
|
In the event of fracture, an ambitious PLA general could potentially use his troops to seize control of a region of China. Other military factions might do the same thing in the hope of ultimately taking control of the central government
|
||
|
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
|
||
|
||
|
heyamigos
Samurai
Joined: 31-Aug-2012 Online Status: Offline Posts: 126 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Oct-2012 at 06:05 |
|
|
I think both Vietnam and North Korea are following patterns of development (esp. economic first, and possibly politics later) in mainland China. Much of it hinges upon how local democratic movements are tolerated in Hong Kong. Lately, there have been shows of this trend. Hong Kongers are sometimes pushing their political expression to the brink, while China needs to tolerate it because of the 50 years agreement and enticement to Taiwan (and ultimately its own billion citizens) that differences from within as long as the system is united as one. I think slowly this trend will spread to local politics and from there grow in demand to larger national level politics.
Taiwan's development really cannot be compared to PRC. Many of the refugees were elites who had previous German and Western style training in economics and main thing was Taiwan was much smaller to govern. I think even had KMT remained in China, the economy would be developing as it is in China today (ie rich coastal/urban regions and poorer interior/rural regions). but, keep in mind that even those coastal/urban regions of China have population size as big as the United States, so with China's situation, it is like India in some ways (societies within society, nations within a nation).
|
||
|
||
|
Nick1986
Emperor
Mighty Slayer of Trolls Joined: 22-Mar-2011 Location: England Online Status: Offline Posts: 7940 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Oct-2012 at 22:00 |
|
|
And like "nations within a nation" the dominant Mandarin-speaking part is trying to assimilate, and ultimately absorb, minorities like the Cantonese and Tibetans
|
||
|
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
|
||
|
||
|
longbaby
Knight
Joined: 21-Oct-2012 Online Status: Offline Posts: 50 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Oct-2012 at 20:21 |
|
|
The future of China is still very uncertain. There is still a strong government in operation. Most of their policies are implemented to their will. Within the nation , the only problem threatening their regime is corruption. Now they don't have effective measures to inhibit corruption.
|
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 12> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.
