CKS remained committed to the democratization of China throughout his life, following SYS's principle that the political modernization of the Chinese Republic must pass from: revolutionary military rule, to one-party tutelage, and finally to constitutional democracy.The ROC was on track to constitutional democracy after victory over Japan, but the CPC boycotted the National Assembly and restarted the Civil War. This led to the declaration of Martial Law and the suspension of certain political rights — but this was to be temporary, and the martial law period was ended by President CCK at the end of the Cold War.If Mao and the CPC hadn't boycotted the National Assembly and restarted hostilities, China would have democratized in the mid-20th century.
KMT China would be the most backwards shithole imaginable.>mass illiteracy>entire economy still owned by foreigners and landlords>half of the population still addicted to opiumand before the inevitable>but what about taiwanRemember, Taiwan either didn't have these problems, or had almost solved these problems due to decades of Japanese rule. The whole of China being KMT would see it remain a quasi-feudal shithole forever. Think India, but yellow instead of brown.
>>18615758[citation needed]
>>18615764https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/kuomintang-regime-and-the-shanghai-capitalists-192729/5E2322128DB1891F24000A7A94CCC24B>“The reorganized Kuomintang [of 1927] established itself on a new social base – the Shanghai bankers, the industrial and commercial bourgeoisie of the cities, and the landlords in the country.” Such was the view of the allegedly leftist editor Frederick Spencer writing in 1934, and his opinion has been shared by writers of a variety of political persuasions and backgrounds. T. A. Bisson, a research associate for the Foreign Policy Association, observed in 1933 that the Nanking regime's “most powerful supporters have been the Shanghai bankers.” Robert W. Barnett, writing in 1941 for the Institute of Pacific Relations, argued that after 1927 “a progressive but anti-revolutionary Chinese bourgeoisie provided the ruling Kuomintang with its principal source of inspiration and support.” Ch'en Po-ta wrote that the Nanking regime was “a counter-revolutionary military dictatorship of the big compradors and big landlords. It was formed with the Shanghai, or the ‘Kiangsu-Chekiang,’ gangster ring of comprador–financiers at its core.”
>>18615758So basically China without imported western industries anyway.
>>18615788No, not at all.Mao stamped out opium, got literacy to 70% (from 20%), completely got rid of the landlord class, got rid of the Western banks and financiers, and all this before the economic reforms you're referring to.The landlord and foreign banking class that ruled Chiang had a vested interest in keeping China a shithole, and that's how it would have remained if he'd won.
>>18615751These days, the PRC is exactly what Chiang envisioned. The Chinese Communist Party do not act like Communists these days.
>>18615782>“The reorganized Kuomintang [of 1927] established itself on a new social base... the landlords in the country.”The author admits that that this claim is from a leftist editor and it's a claim unsupported by anyone else in the except other leftists.>T. A. Bisson... observed... that the Nanking regime's “most powerful supporters have been the Shanghai bankers.”What has this got to do with illiteracy and foreign financial control?>a progressive but anti-revolutionary Chinese bourgeoisieDo you know what the term "progressive bourgeoise" means?>Ch'en Po-ta wrote...Chen Boda was a Communist, so his opinion is irrelevant.
Calm down Xao, Chiang's ghost can't hurt you now
>>18615803False, Chiang did not believe that that one-party political tutelage was the end goal for the Chinese state.
>>18615815>this claim is from a leftist editor and it's a claim unsupported by anyone else in the except other leftists.So you just dismissed the "his opinion has been shared by writers of a variety of political persuasions and backgrounds" part?>What has this got to do with illiteracy and foreign financial control?The "Shanghai bankers" were not native Chinese owned. The economy of Shanghai at this time was run as a concession of several foreign powers.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_International_Settlement>Do you know what the term "progressive bourgeoise" means?But anti-revolutionary. Ergo they would not upend the entrenched landlord class nor the Foreign domination.>Chen Boda was a Communist, so his opinion is irrelevant.I refer you to the first part of my reply, that this concensus was shared by all political persuasions.
>>18615849>The "Shanghai bankers" were not native Chinese ownedYes, they were lol. You think no one knew how to write a loan or charge interest in the length and breadth of chinese history until the gweilos turned up? Come off it, wonton
There was a lot of revisionism and cope after the Truman establishment backstabbed them. Saying instead that they were doomed or evil despite saying previously that they were based and christpilled democracy loving freedom fighters.
>>18615849>So you just dismissed the "his opinion has been shared by writers of a variety of political persuasions and backgrounds" part?Show me where writers other than leftists charged the KMT as being controlled by landlords...>The "Shanghai bankers" were not native Chinese owned.The "Shanghai bankers" that were in league with the KMT were native Chinese. In fact, CCK expropriated capital from foreign financiers in Shanghai when he was head of the secret police.>But anti-revolutionary. Ergo they would not upend the entrenched landlord class nor the Foreign domination.They were anti-revolutionary in the sense of being ant-Communist.>I refer you to the first part of my reply, that this concensus was shared by all political persuasions.Show me where specifically the claim that the KMT was dominated by landlords is shared by anyone outside of leftist circles.
>>18615818And karl marx believe the end goal of communism is statelessness. So?
>>18615751>revolutionary military rule, to one-party tutelage, and finally to constitutional democracyYeah and socialism builds communist. Granted KMT would've applied the same economic policies Deng has introduced only with some flavour shifts, but that's a detail. Declaratory principles aren't actual policy. In reality you don't know
>>18615868People find out you suck when you lose like a KWAB.
>>18615751If Mao and the CCP controlled China in 1931 there would have been no Japanese invasion, instead they would have been pushed out of Korea like MacArthur.
>>18615788Let's see the KMT do this faggot
>>18615877my history professor at Boston University, who was very critical of Mao and the PRC, openly stated in his lectures that Chiang's base was in the gentry and the Green Gang.I wish I remembered his name so I could cite his scholarship, it's been a while
>>18615818He didn't change his mind about this until well after rule in Taiwan and even then did nothing to change the one party rule. The modern CCP is just Chiang's KMT with a communist mask.
How long until we have to start calling it GMD?
>>18616024He never changed his mind? Taiwan was a one party state until well after he died.
