Issues/Problems the PLA needs to address

Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Blackstone said:
I thought I explained that already, but I guess I wasn't clear. My reasons are;

1) I think China will someday become a democratic meritocracy (maybe in 50 years)
2) Before that can happen, the CCP at some point must be placed under the rule of law
3) Unfortunately, CCP elites, plutocrats, and cadre probably wouldn't give up power voluntarily, and they control the army
4) Therefore the PLA (and all its cousins) must transform from a private security force, not answerable to the people, to a national army that is loyal to the nation (nation= whatever government a majority of people elects) and not to The Party
Click to expand...

In other words, the "issues and problems" that you perceive in the PLA is not related to the PLA being "subordinate" or "loyal" to the CCP per se, but rather that you perceive an issue where the government and the party are effectively the same.

So I'd suggest that we cease this particular line of discussion in this thread, because the underlying issue for you is not one about military structure rather than political structure, and the seemingly innocent suggestion of "China's military should be a "national military" rather than a private/party/whatever army" is actually an immensely loaded suggestion.

In this thread, I think we should try to avoid political discussions, even though I accept that military deficiencies will obviously be influenced by a number of factors, including political structure. But if one can identify a meaningful deficiency which they think is related to political structure, then I think they have to make a very convincing case to suggest that the political structure is the key significant cause of a particular deficiency, for us to seriously consider debating what a solution to the deficiency may be -- and a solution may not even necessarily be related to political structure anyway.

Putting it another way, this thread should be about the issues and problems which may plague the Chinese military, based on its present and forseeable missions, requirements and responsibilities as sanctioned by the state (which like it or not, is still the CCP at present, so if you want to discuss this issue in any meaningful way it's worth accepting this fact).

If you want to talk about how the Chinese military should change to allow China to transition into a different political structure, then try and create another thread for it... we'll see how long it lasts until it gets closed.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
Equation said:
I didn't know this was a measuring contest of sort. Apparently you've already lost your claim as being "balance" in regards to the CPC or PLA by first posting " I believe Commissars in the Red Army are hatchet men loyal not to the soldiers and officers they "support," but to the Party Chairman and the Communist Party" which has NOTHING to do about the subject of the thread. You didn't even bother to display how the Commissars structural form are a hinderance to PLA chain of command or it's responsibility to the defense of China what so ever other than using propaganda like slogan to boast your distaste for the CPC.
Click to expand...
I did mention the totality of posts as basis and not cherry picked passages, right...?
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
Equation said:
You left out the Taiwan current government regime in that sentence. I wonder why.
Click to expand...
Because I seldom have much to say about Taiwan, and when I do, it's probably critical of the Democratic Progressive Party and the Taiwan independence movement. So, what's your point?
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
Blackstone said:
I thought I explained that already, but I guess I wasn't clear. My reasons are;

1) I think China will someday become a democratic meritocracy (maybe in 50 years)
2) Before that can happen, the CCP at some point must be placed under the rule of law
3) Unfortunately, CCP elites, plutocrats, and cadre probably wouldn't give up power voluntarily, and they control the army
4) Therefore the PLA (and all its cousins) must transform from a private security force, not answerable to the people, to a national army that is loyal to the nation (nation= whatever government a majority of people elects) and not to The Party
Click to expand...

The PLA absolutely is answerable to the people right now, because the PARTY itself is answerable to the people!

What you are glossing over is how any democratizing transition, if any, will happen. The only realistic prospect for this transition to happen is under the leadership of the CPC, in which case your conjured scenario becomes irrelevant.
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
solarz said:
The PLA absolutely is answerable to the people right now, because the PARTY itself is answerable to the people!

What you are glossing over is how any democratizing transition, if any, will happen. The only realistic prospect for this transition to happen is under the leadership of the CPC, in which case your conjured scenario becomes irrelevant.
Click to expand...

As Bltizo has already eloquently surmised, Blackstone's problem isn't with anything to do with the PLA, but rather China's entire political system.

His suggestions and objections have precisely nothing to do with the PLA's operational and combat capabilities and everything to do with him trying to invent a scenario where the CCP is removed from power, by armed force if necessary (hence the obsession about making the PLA a National Army rather than have it stay as it is as a Party's army).

As such, his suggestions about China becoming a Democracy sounds like nothing that will make China better and everything about making China more vulnerable to the kinds of "Colour Revolutions" and Coups the West is fond to instigating (although I doubt that is Blackstone's intention, but it will inevitably be the outcome nevertheless).

I do not follow the lemming rush and blindly worship at the altar of "Democracy".

You do not need to be a Democracy to offer your citizens opportunity, prosperity, freedom and rights.

Opportunity and prosperity stems from the economy, freedom and rights from the rule of law.

There are certainly strengths and advantages of the western "Democratic" model, but also glaring weaknesses and obvious deficiencies, such that on balance, I see little to no net advantage to China moving to copy and paste such a flawed and dysfunctional system.

In fact, China adopting a western Democratic system would be a giant backwards step in my view, if for no other reason then the fact that if China did that, its political evolution would effectively stop.

Right now, the Chinese political system certainly has its flaws and drawbacks, but the inability to evolve is most certainly not one of them.

The Chinese political system has evolved and changed just as much, if not more so, than its economy and the physical appearance of Chinese cities. Indeed, it was this political sea change that allowed all the other transformations to take place in the first place.

China's political system is constantly changing, evolving, adapting and improving to meet the ever greater expectations and increasing sophistication of its citizens.

OTOH, the Western Democratic model is held in such fanatical high regard it might as well be a religion, and any suggestion that there might be a better way is met with enough righteous anger and indignation as to make any mainstream religion go green with envy.

As with nature, those that are unable or unwilling to evolve and adapt will inevitably be left behind by progress.

In many ways, the West is in the same trap that ensnared the old Chinese Dynasties - they were blessed with many natural advantages and built the greatest civilisation on earth. But rather than recognise the true reason for their success and greatness, they attributed it all to the manifest superiority of their system of government, and declared that the source of all the good in the world while gradually but surely loosing touch with the true sources of their strength and power.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
solarz said:
The PLA absolutely is answerable to the people right now, because the PARTY itself is answerable to the people!
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Yes in that all politi are ultimately answerable to the people, since the masses always have the option to eject regimes through violent insurrections and revolutions. But, if we consider less extreme means to change ruling bodies, then Communist Party of China isn't truly answerable to the people, since there are no elections to retain or replace it with other political parties. The CCP has made it clear it will not allow multi-party elections, and one might be forgiven to think it's because the Red Dynasty is afraid the people would vote them out.

What you are glossing over is how any democratizing transition, if any, will happen. The only realistic prospect for this transition to happen is under the leadership of the CPC, in which case your conjured scenario becomes irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Of course what I and everyone else opin here are irrelevant to some or all readers. It is, after all, an online marketplace for the free exchange of information, ideas, opinions, and speculations. A good way to describe it is from an old army sergeant I met: "opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink."

It is also notable the Chinese Communist Party- one that you say is answerable to the Chinese people- will not allow its citizens free access to this forum or to other non-Gstapoed information and discussion forums. But hey! I get it. I mean if I was a CCP leader, I'd do a lot to limit the people's choices so I could stay in power too.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
plawolf said:
As Bltizo has already eloquently surmised, Blackstone's problem isn't with anything to do with the PLA, but rather China's entire political system.

His suggestions and objections have precisely nothing to do with the PLA's operational and combat capabilities and everything to do with him trying to invent a scenario where the CCP is removed from power, by armed force if necessary (hence the obsession about making the PLA a National Army rather than have it stay as it is as a Party's army).

As such, his suggestions about China becoming a Democracy sounds like nothing that will make China better and everything about making China more vulnerable to the kinds of "Colour Revolutions" and Coups the West is fond to instigating (although I doubt that is Blackstone's intention, but it will inevitably be the outcome nevertheless).

I do not follow the lemming rush and blindly worship at the altar of "Democracy".

You do not need to be a Democracy to offer your citizens opportunity, prosperity, freedom and rights.

Opportunity and prosperity stems from the economy, freedom and rights from the rule of law.

There are certainly strengths and advantages of the western "Democratic" model, but also glaring weaknesses and obvious deficiencies, such that on balance, I see little to no net advantage to China moving to copy and paste such a flawed and dysfunctional system.

In fact, China adopting a western Democratic system would be a giant backwards step in my view, if for no other reason then the fact that if China did that, its political evolution would effectively stop.

Right now, the Chinese political system certainly has its flaws and drawbacks, but the inability to evolve is most certainly not one of them.

The Chinese political system has evolved and changed just as much, if not more so, than its economy and the physical appearance of Chinese cities. Indeed, it was this political sea change that allowed all the other transformations to take place in the first place.

China's political system is constantly changing, evolving, adapting and improving to meet the ever greater expectations and increasing sophistication of its citizens.

OTOH, the Western Democratic model is held in such fanatical high regard it might as well be a religion, and any suggestion that there might be a better way is met with enough righteous anger and indignation as to make any mainstream religion go green with envy.

As with nature, those that are unable or unwilling to evolve and adapt will inevitably be left behind by progress.

In many ways, the West is in the same trap that ensnared the old Chinese Dynasties - they were blessed with many natural advantages and built the greatest civilisation on earth. But rather than recognise the true reason for their success and greatness, they attributed it all to the manifest superiority of their system of government, and declared that the source of all the good in the world while gradually but surely loosing touch with the true sources of their strength and power.
Click to expand...
You know, Wolf, for a rational and intelligent poster, you missed it. A fair reading of just the last few of my posts on "democracy promotion" and "color revolutions" would make you consider you might have it backwards.

I'm against the so-called democracy promotion (as its practiced today), not because I disagree with the idea, but because empirical evidence show it don't work. Now, if "color revolutions" actually produced good results for democratic governance, then I'm for using it on the CCP. But, available evidence suggest color revolution in China would most likely produce, not a functional democracy, but chaos and maybe even civil wars that would make the Taiping Rebellion look mild. China is now too important to the world for that to happen.
 
Y

Yvrch

Junior Member
Registered Member
OK guys, we better stop this now, unless mods create a section for political porn where all adult materials are widely freely distributed for general public consumption, this is heading to a huge stinky mud pool fit for pigs, figuratively speaking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top