A New Year Post and the new generation Chinese

Today is the Chinese New Year. Sincerely I wish all the readers of Thinking Space a great new year of dragon!

In this very first post of 2012, I would like to share how the new generation Chinese (typically to who were born after 1980) are thinking of some old, but at the same time very much timely, topics of mankind---revolution, democracy, and freedom.

The year of 2011 is remarkable for the global-wide revolution of looking for more freedom and democracy. From Tunisia to Egypt and Syria, and to the Wall Street, revolution and protests were everywhere. In consequence, TIME magazine made the Protester the person of the year 2011.

Being the largest nation of the world that remains the dictatorial leadership, China was expected to be greatly affected in the movement by many western human-right activists. In reality, however, the nation is barely shaken. At the end of December 2011, just few days before the new year, Han Han (韩寒), the most popular and well-known blogger in China, published his so-far most profound and clearly-stated viewpoints on revolution, democracy, and freedom. The three blog posts, "Speak Revolution" (谈革命), "Say Democracy" (说民主), and "Ask Freedom" (要自由), are the manifesto of the Chinese new generation on what they believe China will and shall be in this rapidly changing world. Han Han, being the speaker of this new generation Chinese, organized and concluded the message.

To anyone who are interesting in the contemporary China or the people who want to learn the future of China, he must pay attention to the three articles. In this post I therefore share some selected viewpoints from them. Moreover, I add it with a few comments of my own. Hopefully the comments may help the readers to understand better of the original messages.

Speak Revolution (谈革命)

Q: Does China need a revolution?

Han Han: No. China needs reform. But China does not need revolution.

The problems of having revolution in China:

(1) Only the cruel persons could (and would) be the ultimate beneficiaries of revolution. This is especially true in the eastern societies (such as China) that are constituted of many different classes and with very complicated interest distribution in heritage.

(2) Besides anti-corruption there is no other general consensus in China. Anti-corruption, however, can only be served as the cause of a revolution but not the goal of a revolution.

(3) Normally the goal of revolutions is to realize the common interest such as "freedom" or "just". There are, unfortunately, no markets of these issues in the contemporary China. Most Chinese people "feel" that they are now free. When being asked about just, most Chinese do not really care of it until themselves are unjustly treated.

Therefore, in the contemporary China revolution is impossible. The only transformation that may occur is reform. And it is happening.

Q: Isn't the problem of China too great to a reform?

Han Han: If it would be a revolution and suppose it were not suppressed (very unlikely) by the government, the following would become reality.

In the middle of the revolution, we will face the problem of whom leads. There will be no consensus among the students, the ordinary city citizens, the social elites, the intellectuals, the peasants, and the workers. In particular, the about 250 million people, who are very poor and previously have no access to Internet at all, will stand out. The revolution, no matter how it begins, will end with another wave of predatory wealth redistribution (in the name of "getting MY money back"). The middle-class will be destroyed. People will kill each other to grasp more money. Only if the society might be in disorder for 5 years, the people of China would look for a new dictator to end the turbulence and they would bow to his dictatorship. Revolution in China has no hope of bringing the true democracy.

Q: When would be the best time to have revolution and realize democracy in China (if it might happen)?

Han Han: Revolution and democracy are two less-related terms. One does not lead to another. In our history we have proved that revolution can not guarantee to bring democracy. History had given China an opportunity. The generation of our fathers had made their choice. Today China is the least likely nation of the world that may have revolution. At the same time China is with the most urgent need to be reformed. If you insist on asking when the best time of a revolution is, it will be when everyone automatically turns off the high beam of their cars on the street intersections. In fact, however, when it does come true revolution has already become unnecessary.

My comments:

Symbolically in the current China being able to access Internet or not divides Chinese into two groups. The ones who can access Internet are the beneficiaries of the economic reform. The ones who cannot are the sacrifiers. The people of the western society are often only able to hear the voice of the economic-reform beneficiaries. Precisely Han Han is a speaker of this group. Although many times Han Han writes and makes voices for whom cannot access Internet, it is undeniable that he represents only the ultimate interest group of his stand, the economic-reform beneficiaries. It distinguishes him from some other aggressive Chinese human rights activists such as Liu Xiaopo (刘晓波).

The ratio of population between the said two groups determines the stability of the current Chinese society. Since the economic-reform beneficiaries take control of media and government, the revolution of China may not occur unless the number of the economic-reform sacrifiers become significantly greater than the number of the economic-reform beneficiaries. Until now it is not the fact. Therefore I agree to Han Han's observation---currently in China there is no chance of any revolution that is similar to the Arab Spring to happen.

As in any society, people who are grouped because of benefit will break quickly as soon as the benefit becomes no longer. This is why Han Han asks for more and deeper economic reform. And this is why the Chinese government has to make all efforts for sustaining an annual growth rates of 8%. The longer the economic reform continues being effective, the more time China may keep its stability.

There is not going to be revolution in China soon. But the risk always exists because the economic reform has not addressed and will not solve a very fundamental conflict in Chinese society---the conflict between ethics poverty and immoral wealth. Pessimistically Han Han predicted that only the cruel persons might be the ultimate beneficiaries of revolution. It is inferred by the fact that during the economic reform the majority of the great beneficiaries get their benefit through the immoral ways such as corruption. The slogan of the Chinese economic reform ("white cat or black cat, whoever catches mice is the good cat") disclaims the value of morality and truth in the process of economic growth. By the theory it is only the economic outcome that matters. This philosophy accompanies the growing-up of the Chinese new generation. And it has become the dominant style of thinking among this generation.

Empowered by such an outcome-directing philosophy, many of the Chinese new generation become extremely selfish. They do not care of environment until the environment around themselves fails. They do not care of poverty until themselves become poor. They do not care of just until themselves are treated unjustly. Everything must be self, self, and self-centralized. It is truly impossible to imagine a revolution participated by them. On the other hand, the situation is desired by the dictatorial government because the risk of organized anti-government movements is thus restricted to the minimum.

A Country Detached

Although these days most people in North America might have paid more attention to the tragedy in Norway or the ongoing debate between the Republic Congress and President Obama, there was a potentially more historically influential news in China. At about 8:27 PM on July 23, two new Chinese bullet trains crashed together in an accident. Chinese people are outraged. People understand that it is impossible to avoid all accidents. But people cannot accept how the Chinese government had handled the accident. Personally I believe this event could be the September 11 of China. The event is remarkable and I may share more of my viewpoints later in this blog about this tragedy and how it may affect China in the future.

Today, I translated an article written by the currently most popular Chinese blogger---Han Han (Chinese: 韩寒)---early today. Very compelling words especially for the ones who want to learn more about the real China and the real Chinese people.



A Country Detached

You have to ask, how could they be so frenzied? They feel that they have been very patient and self-restraint.

You have to ask, how could they invert right and wrong so dramatically? They feel that they have been very just and frank.

You have to ask, how could they shield the murderer so insistently? They feel that they have been very sorry to their fucking friends.

You have to ask, how could they hide the truth? They feel that they have been very transparent and open.

You have to ask, how could they still live in a life so corrupt even in this accident? They feel that they have lived very plainly.

You have to ask, how could they be still so arrogant? They fell that they have been very humble to everybody.

You feel wronged; and so do they. In their mind, you could not watch TV under the rule of the Qing government. Now a TV set has entered every household of China. What a magnificent accomplishment!

This is what speaks in their mind. "We have built this for you, and we have built that for you. You shall not care what had happen during the process or to whom the gift is. At least, you are using it now, aren't you? Originally traveling from Shanghai to Beijing it took you one day and one night. Now it takes you only five hours. Certainly, however, the train must not be hit by lightning! Why are you not grateful? Why do you still question us so much?"

They continued. "Occasionally there is this accident. The top leaders of our government have even already expressed their concern. We have sent our speakers to answer your questions. Originally it was 170K insurance for every dead. Now we have risen it to 500K per dead person. And we even have fired one of our brothers. So much have we done! Why are you still stick to those insignificant details? Why don't you open your mind? Where is your grand vision?"

"Why should we apologize? We have no mistakes. This is a pain of growing up. It is our custom to get rid of the dead bodies rapidly. The earlier the release documents are signed, the more money bonus there are. The later the release documents are signed, the less insurance money you may get. This strategy has been proved very effectively by our brother departments when they perform the enforced demolition over the old resident houses. Indeed, it was a mistake of us by trying to bury the cars though the order was from above. The upper management believed that we might get rid of all the troubles as soon as all the evidences were buried. Our mistake was, however, that we worked on it during the daytime. The hole was too big and we had not well communicated with the publicity department ahead of the time. Moreover, we did not well control the onsite photographers. The whole process was executed in rush. This is the greatest lesson we learned from this accident. Next time when we bury something on the site of an accident we need to think carefully of the size of the object and especially the information confidentiality. This time we have underestimated the hardness of the work."

They believe that, overall, the rescue was successful and in time. It is well arranged, well executed, and the result is satisfactory. The only regret is that the public opinions are a little bit too loud. But they feel that it is, anyway, not their business. They are not in charge of regulating the public voice.

In their mind they also speak. "Take a look at these big achievements. We hosted the Olympic Games. We abolished the agricultural tax. You do not praise us by all these big things but only focus on the tiny little things. What intention is in your mind? We could have been tighter in politics than North Korea, we could have been poorer in economy than Sudan, and we could have been crueler in regulation than Khmer Rouge since we have a larger army than any of them. But we did not do it. And you do not thank us for not doing all of these but now demand us to apologize. We feel wronged."

In this society, everybody feel wronged. The capitalists, the proletarians, the ones with power, and the ones without any power. All of them feel wronged. In this nation that everybody feel wronged, every class and every facet of the nation detached each other. Each portion is sliding forward by inertia. If there is no reform of the nation, being detached is just a minor matter. Being derailed will be inevitable.

Why does not our nation progress forward? It is because many of THEM still use the scales in the era of Mao and Stalin to measure themselves. Hence they always feel wronged. They have been too open, too just, too kind, too humble, and too self-scarified to the normal people of China. Although these advancement are primarily due to the technology leap-forward in the present era, they conclude it as their own kindness and mercy. Therefore the more they are criticized, the more eager they are to the totalitarian. The more you MAOed (which means annoy) them, the more they missed Mao.

A friend of me who is an inner government once spoke to me. "You shall not be too greedy! As a scholar like you, if you lived forty years ago, you must have been shot. Then tell me, is our era now progressed or regressed?"

I answered. "It is you shall not be too greedy! As a viewpoint like what you just declared, if you lived ninety years ago, you must have been laughed at to the death. Now you tell me, is our era now progressed or regressed?"

脱节的国度 by 韩寒
(Update 7/29/2011, the original link has already removed by the Sina Blog administration. This is what the present China is.)

你一直问，他们何以如此的丧心病狂，他们却觉得自己已经非常的克制忍让。

你一直问，他们何以如此的颠倒黑白，他们却觉得自己已经非常的公正坦率。

你一直问，他们何以如此的包庇凶手，他们却觉得自己已经非常的愧对炮友。

你一直问，他们何以如此的掩盖真相，他们却觉得自己已经非常的透明开放。

你一直问，他们何以如此的生活腐化，他们却觉得自己已经非常的艰苦朴素。

你一直问，他们何以如此的骄横傲慢，他们却觉得自己已经非常的姿态低下。

你觉得自己很委屈，他们也觉得自己很委屈，他们认为，在清政府的统治下，老百姓连电视机都看不上，现在电视机已经走进了千家万户，这是多大的进步。

他们觉得，我们建了这个，我们建了那个，你别管过程中发生了什么，也别管这是给谁献礼，至少你用到了吧。你以前从上海到北京火车要一天一夜，现在只要不被雷劈，五个小时就到了，你为何不感激，为何充满了质疑？

偶然发生一个安全事故，中央最高领导都已经表示了关心，我们还派人来回答你们记者的问题，原来赔17万，现在赔50万，甚至撤职了一个兄弟，事情都做到这份上了，你们为什么还抓着一些细节不放呢，你们的思想怎么反而就这样不开放呢？你们的大局观都去哪里了呢？为什么要我们谢罪呢，我们又没犯罪，这是发展的代价。迅速处理尸体是我们的惯例，早签字多发奖金，晚签字少拿赔偿，这是我们的兄弟部门在强拆工作中被证明了行之有效的手段。掩埋车厢的确是当时一个糊涂做出的一个决定，况且是上头叫我们这么做的。因为上头觉得任何可能引发的麻烦都是可以就地掩埋的。错就错在大白天就开始施工，洞挖太大，而且没有和宣传部门沟通好，现场的摄影记者也没有全控制住，准备工作比较仓促。这次事故最大的教训就是以后在就地掩埋某些事物的时候还是要考虑到物体的体积和工作的保密。低估了。

他们认为，总体来说，这次的救援是成功的，及时的。调度合理，统筹规范，善后满意。唯一的遗憾是在舆论上有点失控，他们觉得这就不是我们的责任了，舆论不归我们管。

他们认为，从大的来说，我们举办了奥运会，我们取消了农业税，这些你们不赞美，老是抓住一些细枝末节的东西，这是什么居心。我们本可以在政治上比朝鲜更紧，在经济上比苏丹更穷，在治国上比红色高棉更狠，因为我们拥有比他们更多的军队，但是我们没有那么做，你们不感恩，却要我们谢罪，我们觉得很委屈。这个社会里，有产者，无产者，有权者，无权者，每个人都觉得自己很委屈。一个所有人都觉得委屈的国家，各个阶层都已经互相脱节了，这个庞大的国家各种组成的部分依靠惯性各顾各的滑行着，如果再无改革，脱节事小，脱轨难救。

国家为什么不进步，是因为他们中的很多人一直在用毛泽东斯大林时代的他们来衡量自己，所以他们永远觉得自己太委屈了，太开明了，太公正了，太仁慈了，太低姿态了，太不容易了。他们将科技裹着时代向前走的步伐当成了自己主动开放的幻象，于是你越批评他，他越渴望极权，你越搞毛他，他越怀念毛。

有一个国家机器朋友对我说，你们就是不知足，你这样的文人，要是搁在四十年前，你就被枪毙了，你说这个时代，是进步了还是退步了。

我说，你们就是不知足，你这样的观点，要是搁在九十年前，早就被人笑死了，你说这个时代，他到底是进步了还是。

How to kill idealism

June 4th has been a remarkable date of China since 1989.

During the past two decades, in China we have witnessed the death of idealism nationwide among more than a billion people. The substitution is the extreme materialism. One must not have genuine thoughts other than making money. Even the idealistic communism is dead. The remaining is the materialistic communism, which is closer to capitalism than the idealistic communism. The value of many idealistic accomplishments such as morality and self-discipline thus decreases rapidly. A representative example is the rapid prevalence of the cat theory by Deng Xiaoping (the primary architect of China's economic reform) that declares "do not care if the cat is black or white, what matters is it catches mice". In the other words, the only factor that matters in our life is which brings the material outcome.

The people of a nation needs to be materialistic in order to execute the daily business. The people of a nation, however, must also have be idealistic so that they know the real value for which they work. Someone says that nobody eats morality. Without the value of morality, however, there is no healthy human society. Idealism is mankind's self-motivation to foster the glue of healthy human society. While it is materialism that motivates people higher rate of production, it is idealism that keeps humans be a coherent society rather than many self-interest groups.

In 1989, Chinese people promoted a greater demand of idealism that threatened the leadership of the mean-time government. In order to get rid of this threat, the Chinese leadership board took the worst action by unlimited exaggerating the value of material in every aspect of human society. Therefore, the correctness of any action becomes no longer judged by the truth (which is an idealistic concept) but by the its material consequence (which is a materialistic concept). We have to say that the Chinese leadership board were very smart because they immediately figured out the best way of solving the problem. Such a knowledge is probably the worst heritage in China's multi-thousand-year history. But it works. It killed, again, the idealism in China among at least a generation of people.

After twenty years, it is hard to blame too much on either the students' or the government's decisions in the spring of 1989 in China. Both sides have their arguments and both sides had made a few bad decisions. The worst of all, however, is the government's promotion of the extreme materialism after the tragedy because it hurts and will continue hurt China for many generations. Probably in the sense of truth, June 4th, 1989 was indeed a battle between the idealism and the materialism more than any other contrasts.

Something ended in June 4th, 1989. Something began in June 4th, 1989. I felt sad about all people who were killed or suffered by that tragedy, no matter they belonged to the side of students or the side of government. They should not die for just few person's ambition.

From Best Buy to Five Star Appliance, a culture conflict

February 22, 2011, Best Buy China (百思买) announced that it shut down its own retail stores in China but "to consolidate its China business operations under its wholly-owned Five Star brand." This announcement is not a big hit in today's news. I am, however, interested in it since it reveals something that is critical for not only Best Buy, but any successful western companies that want to expand their business in China.

One needs to apply different models to run the same business in China and in United States. Although this idea is not new at all, many people still do not truly get it until they fail. The business is the same; but the culture where the business runs is very different.

Let's take a look at Best Buy China. First of all, "百思买" (the Chinese translation of the Best Buy brand) is a dumb brand name to native Chinese. When the first time I saw the name, I was wondering who the hell suggested such a dumb name. Straightforward translation, "百思买" in plain Chinese means to buy it after a hundred times of rethinking. The meaning in Chinese translation is exactly the opposite to the Best Buy in native English, which means "no-brainer, this is simply the best buy". If I were the translator, I would recommend "最佳电", which is much better than the current translation and with exactly the same intention the Best Buy brand in English wants to broadcast. Some people may say that it is just a name. But it shows how little the Best Buy executives had known Chinese and the Chinese culture. A bad brand name often leads to a business failure; and it is proved again.

For any business, the first thing of success is to correctly identify the group of its customers. Best Buy certainly has no problem on the answer in United States, and in many other countries too. But it does not recognize the answer correctly in China. In United States, the Best Buy customers are typically the middle class. And it is the same in many other nations too. In China, however, there is no real middle class despite many politicians or economists claim its existence. In China, there are only two classes among people in history and till now---the elite class and the rest. A business can either serve the elite class or serve the rest. Trying to serve in the middle is simply an illusion to a grand-size business!

The Chinese society is divided by a magic word---官(Chinese pronunciation "Guan", which means Official). One is either a 官 or he is not. If he is, he belongs to the elite class basically. Otherwise, he belongs to the rest. Any ranks, including the pure academic titles in the western society such as professor or the technological titles such as engineer, is evaluated in China with certain equivalent to a level of 官. For example, a mayor-level professor versus a governor-level professor. To the people living in the western countries, it must be really hard to think of a distinction between a mayor-level professor and a governor-level professor. What does it mean? Isn't he just a professor? No, he isn't. In China one's social rank is generally determined by the equivalence of their professional title to the level of 官. So a governor-level professor is certainly superior to a mayor-level professor, discarding their real academic achievement, indeed, most of the time.

Any business, especially the retail business, that does not understand the former distinction may unlikely sustain in China. This is the essence behind Best Buy China's failure.

Best Buy wants to sell its product to the middle-class Chinese. But who are they? The elite class people generally expect more superior service than Best Buy normally provides in the western nations, which addresses the ordinary western middle-class people. To the rest of Chinese, however, the Best Buy service is an overhead since it increases the "unnecessary" cost that they do not want to pay at all. Between the two classes there is a niche, which might be named "middle class". But their number is limited even in the big cities such as Shanghai. A small start-up business may fit into the niche. It is, however, definitely too narrow to sustain a super-size business like Best Buy.

From now on Best Buy hands its business execution to the wholly-owned local business Five Star Appliance. May it solve the problem? I am cautiously optimistic to it. Fully localize a global business into China is a right step. But the step by itself is not enough to secure success. Until the Best Buy administration in United States truly understands the Chinese society, Best Buy will not succeed in China.

Again, the message is not just for Best Buy.

From Egypt to China

Recently a friend asked my opinion about the Egyptian revolution and how Chinese people may react to it. The topic is timely and illuminating and thus I would like to share my answer to the readers. The Egyptian revolution is remarkable to the contemporary history, but its impact to China and the Chinese people in the near future will be limited.

Egypt

The Egyptian revolution occurred with the background of the Web-2.0 booming and the economic recession. The booming of Web 2.0 has brought the world wealth accumulation. The economic recession did, however, exactly the opposite. This pair of contradiction composed a main melody in the past decade. The Egyptian revolution was an explosive release of the said contradiction in the Middle East.

Accompanied with the Web-2.0 booming it is the trend of globalization. The world becomes flatter than before. The economic recession, on the other hand, warns us a terrible side effect of the world being flattened. The dams and other traditional landscape obstacles that used to preventing the flood of the global economy river have gradually lost their functionality in this newly flattened world. Globalization is both of a primary contributor of the economic growth in the last decade and a primary cause of the economic recession at the end of the decade. As we all know, the flood in a plain usually lead to greater destruction than it is in a valley surrounded by mountains. Besides the other internal reasons, the said contradiction is the main external factor for the Egyptian revolution.

In this evolution, the Egyptians were not pursuing the idealistic freedom. They were (and are) looking for better life. The fallen of the Mubarak administration was not due to the lack of freedom in the nation. It was, however, due to that the lack-of-freedom model had become the inevitable obstacle for the economic growth of Egypt. As I always said, the Web evolution is not just about the Web, it is a social evolution in essence. The Egyptian revolution is a typical example of how the virtual world evolution has been extended to the real world.

China

If we apply the same scale to study China, immediately we can see the difference. The economic landscape of China has not been flattened omnidirectionally during the last decade as it was in some other nations such as Egypt. Although China is one of the primary beneficiaries of globalization, China has very carefully prevented itself from being flattened unconditionally. By contrast, China is one of the few nations that have intentionally constructed the new barriers to fight against the technological improvement. Many critics have criticized what China did. Especially from the ethical point of view, I also agree to the critics. But at the same time we must admit the fact. It is these efforts of being against the tide of globalization that survives China from the economic recession. Due to the same reason, the chance of China being significantly affected by the explosive Egyptian revolution is very low.

Another factor in the scheme is the people in China. Unlike the Egyptians, most of the Chinese in mainland China are atheists. It means that they significantly care more about the present life than the life in future, let it alone the life after death. Therefore, it is very unlikely, if ever possible, to appeal their attention by the pure moral value. On the other hand, in history Chinese are not this type of persons. Unlike people in many other nations, especially the western countries, Chinese revolutions have never occurred due to the spread of any other global-scale revolution. Even the communist revolution in China was not a continuation of the Russian revolution but more or less the continuation of the regular dynasty substitution in its own history. As a nation with super-long history and tremendous number of population, China is a place where it may only export but unlikely import revolutions.

The upcoming economic trend in China and United States

My comment on the translation: The prediction in this article is shocking. Or, to some readers, it is too dramatic to be real. Liu Junluo, however, has a long list of proved records of precisely predicting the upcoming critical economic events and their time both in China and in the global scale, which includes the most recent global economic crisis.

The original title of the article was "2012年——2013年中国恶性通货膨胀" (2012-2013, hyperinflation in China). I revise the title to be "the upcoming economic trend in China and United States" by believing it revealing the theme better. The original article in Chinese is here. I also added a few translator's comment and external links (there were no external links in the original article) so that the content may become easier to be understood. Moreover, here are more articles of Liu Junluo translated by Thinking Space.

Thanks for Google translate that saves me a lot of time in translating.

(1)

There is a story. In a deluxe casino many people win money; and the next time they win again. After a while, spontaneously these people reach a consensus: aha -- now it is our time! The "fool" casino owner continues his business and loses money. More and more people thus run for the casino seeking their "brilliant future". When time goes on, they start to bet all they have on the table. Enough. This is an old fashion, and the ending is well-known. The inevitable destiny is waiting for the gamblers.

In 1992, the U.S. President Mr. Clinton promoted the liberal market economy in order to integrate the world with the economic globalization. On January 1, 1995, a total of 74 countries that include all the developed countries in the world and dozens of the developing countries such as Brazil, South Korea, Bangladesh, Kenya, etc. officially became the founding members of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Several years later, in 2001 another U.S. President Mr. Bush Jr. launched the largest tax cut and increased government expenditure operations in the nation's history, which resulted in a rapid expansion of the huge U.S. trade deficit. The huge U.S. trade deficit, on the other hand, became a strong impetus that pushed the progress of economic globalization.

Based on its great amount low-cost labor force, cheap land cost, and the intentionally underestimated environmental cost, China seized a great percentage of the expanded U.S. trade deficit. In 2003, China took 25% of the U.S. apparel market share, while Mexico, the nation right adjacent to the United States, occupied only 10%. By 2005, the Chinese share was increased to 63% of the U.S. apparel market, while the Mexican share was dropped to about 2%.

In the beginning of the World Trade Organization, the former U.S. President Bill Clinton strongly advocated a win-win philosophy -- the tide of globalization is inevitable; global investment, global market, and the technology distribution in the global scale will benefit the whole world eventually. [Translation comment: Though the statement well sounds,] the problem is, however, that it is the Americans who paid the price for globalization where the price is by carrying the huge trade deficit and current account deficits. In order to continuously hold the nations all over the world participate in this American-led economic globalization movement, in 2009 finally U.S. had a record of huge debts in history. In this way, we are now back to the beginning of this article. A "fool" deluxe casino owner [Translation comment: i.e., the United States of America] loses a lot of money to maintain his business, and every one of his customers seems ready to take advantage over this "fool" casino owner until somebody's bankruptcy. [Translation comment: Who is the "somebody" by your opinion?]

In 2009, China had become the nation with the highest debt in the world measured by the combination of the government debt plus the household indebtedness. The ending of the story thus seems become common sense again.

(2)

Many of the current mainstream economists in China are the followers to the "American-led globalization". Moreover, they are the traffickers of the "trash thinking" in Chinese society. Smugly they advocate the U.S. doctrine of free market and currencies in China. If, however, one should ask them about the future based on their doctrine, such as the US dollar in the coming year or the house price in China in the next two years, usually their reply would not directly address the right answer.

It is indeed not very much horrible for a society controlled by the "trash thinking" traffickers. [Translation comment: In fact, we have learned many similar situations in history, especially in Chinese history.] The real thing that scares us is what these traffickers do is in a plan designed by the Wall-Street "Darwinians". Because of these traffickers' "tireless contribution", the US-made "garbage thoughts" have been implanted successfully into the mind of a vast number of Chinese middle class and the class of migrant workers. Seriously these normal Chinese people start to believe that United States is going to be fallen due to its huge debt. [Translation comment: And thus now it is our turn, our time! Take a look at the story in the beginning again.] But is it true?

At present, the health expenditures per capita in U.S. is about 6700 US dollars. The annual U.S. medical care spending equals to 17% of U.S. GDP, which is much higher than the percentage GDP level in Germany, France, or Japan. Comparing to the people living in Germany, France, or Japan, the tax pressure on the American people is, however, about 30% ~ 50% less. Among all the developed countries, Americans have the least burden on individual tax while the nation provides the most expensive health care services. Why are Chinese people desperate in saving? 70% of the saved money is for the reason of the lack of health care protection. By contrast, the current U.S. health insurance system can be kept effective until at least 2030. Hence how can we be so stupid to believe that Americans do not save?

At present, the total U.S. pension assets is close to 17 trillion US dollars, which is greater than the present U.S. GDP (15 trillion). In its distribution, 60% ~ 65% are stocks, 25% are long-term bonds. Thus, the essence of the issue is whether United States can maintain its position on leading the technological innovation of the world.

In history and until now, United States is the heaven for technology innovators. These innovators occupies about 1% of the U.S. population. They, on the other hand, controls 65% ~ 75% of America's wealth. At present the innovative companies such as Microsoft, Google, and Wal-Mart maintain as much as 500 billion ~ 800 billion U.S. dollars in cash. Anytime they are ready to go for taking over the next-generation technology innovation.

At the same time, in the present China the majority of wealth is also controlled in the hand of few elites. These elites are, however, China's "gravediggers", or the realtors. [Translation comment: The realtors dig land, and more importantly, they are now sending China's future into grave.] In their hand they have multi-trillion RMB Yuan in cash. Their vision, however, only allows them being ready to buy bulks of land, bricks, and steel anytime. The distinction between "a society of technology innovation" and "a society of idiots" is the difference between survival and long-lasting and the destiny of Louis XVI.

(3)

In the future the world is becoming very very "beautiful". [Translation comment: In Chinese, "beautiful" and "United States of America" share a same Chinese character "美". Hence what the author really means is that the future of our world will become very very "American".]

Globalization has been the melody of our time and it is beyond the willingness of any single nation. In 1995, the total value of global mergers and acquisitions reached a record 356 billion U.S. dollars. Only after a decade, in 2005 such a total value reached more than 3 trillion U.S. dollars. The worldwide Great Depression in 2008 led to a sharp reduction in the total value of global mergers and acquisitions. At the same period the sovereign debt in the developed countries increased rapidly. Indeed, however, it is not something that we should worry too much. The level of sovereign debt in the developed countries at present just arrived at the debt level at 1950. Due to the great reduction of the global production capacity, global mergers and acquisitions is in a cycle of large-scale reduction as well. Between 2013 and 2015 the overall sovereign debt in the developed countries will reach its peak. After 2015 the overall sovereign debt in the developed countries will enter its cycle of large-scale reduction. After 2015, due to the reduction of the sovereign debt worldwide and the release of the suppression over the global mergers and acquisitions fund, there will be a worldwide synchronized economic rebound since the wave of globalization.

Certainly, the most unfortunate thing for United States at the time is that the large-scale retirement of baby boomers will have already begun nationwide. In 2015, 40% of the workers in the manufacturing sector such as in Boeing and Caterpillar will retire, 30% of the workers in the service sector such as in Microsoft, Google, and Wal-Mart will retire.

From 1870 to 1914 during the first wave of the economic globalization in which United States was the winner, there were 60 million people immigrated from Europe to United States. The number was accounted for 4.1% of the overall world population during the period. Right now United States has a total of 35 million immigrants, accounting for 12.6% of the U.S. population. But it only accounts for less than 0.6% of the world's total population. Hence what is the tactic question that the U.S. administration must think of now? The answer is clear---United States urgently needs a large force of high-tech talent from immigration. Since 1989 the collapse of the former Soviet Union provided United States a large number of high-quality and high-tech immigrants. Actually, one of Google's co-founders was from the former Soviet Union. [Translation comment: Which nation will be the next to provide U.S. such a source of immigrants?]

(4)

There is a question: why in 2009 were there so many people crazily buying houses in China? To answer it, there is a theory called the "Butterfly Effect". In the Atlantic area a butterfly named "Lehman" flapped its wings. In consequence far far away in China the house price was risen 50%.

Now even the normal ones like us know that it required U.S. government about 20 billion U.S. dollars if it wanted to save "Lehman" the butterfly at the meantime. The amount equaled to less than 4% of the U.S. financial rescue fund. Why did the U.S. government not save the company?

Told by Lenin: to ruin a nation, one must first destroy its currency.

My dear friends, in 2009 the total debt accumulated by the Chinese central government + the Chinese local governments + the Chinese banks + all the Chinese residents was more than 20 trillion RMB Yuan. At present the size of Chinese economy is 1/3 of the size of U.S. economy. But China's M2 supply is 20% more than America's M2 supply. Let's think of an analogy. If a German sold an egg by obtaining U.S dollar in 1918, in 1923 the German could buy 30 million German eggs using that money in U.S. dollar.

In Qatar, during the hot season one can often see U.S. soldiers driving a jeep bolting on streets. Today, the U.S. Central Command's forward headquarters is in this small country of the Middle East. Qatar, therefore, dismissed its own national army, and being relax beneath U.S. protection.

Bahrain is where the headquarter of the U.S. Fifth Fleet resides. The oil production in the three key allies of U.S. in the Middle East--Saudi Arabia, Qatar,and Bahrain--accounts for nearly 70% of OPEC's total annual production.

The annual economic growth rate of Saudi Arabia is 1.9%, while its birth rate is 3.3%. The Saudi Arabia economy is in a long-term stagnation. Its annual per capita income is decreased from 18 thousand U.S. dollars in the mid-90s to today's less than 7000 U.S. dollars. 90% of Saudi Arabia's revenue comes from oil. To deal with the pressure of the fast-growing population and to overcome the heavy dependence on the oil industry, Saudi Arabia has begun a large-scale industrial upgrading plan. In 2013 the Middle East petrochemical products will be 18 to 20 million tons. The production cost of the petrochemical products in the Middle East is 30% ~ 40% less than the production cost of the petrochemical products in China. This is the flapping wings of another butterfly in 2013.

And now for China there is another butterfly named "Greece", and another butterfly named "Toyota", and another butterfly named "Google", and another butterfly named "iron ore", and another butterfly named "water resource", and another ... So many "butterflies" are ready to flap wings.

In this year, China is going to experience the collapse of its real estate market. From 2012 to 2013 it will be the collapse of the RMB exchange rate followed by a hyperinflation.

In the end of this year, my most conservative estimate of the U.S. dollar index will be 85. How do I know it? United States is a nation chasing financial profit.

The exchange rate of U.S. dollar is a combat legion of United States. Nowadays only "the stupid" would think of wining battles through hackers and bombers. The new form of battlefields is a consequence of globalization.

In 1997 the ASEAN economy collapsed. In particular, Indonesian rupiah dived from 2,500 yuan to 20 thousand Yuan. The economists in Indonesia and all over the world concluded afterward that the problem of Indonesia was its society-wise corruption. When China's time comes, the mainstream Chinese economists will talk about the same thing in China as well.

By then, CIA will help raise few "Chen Shui-bian" in mainland. And this is called the art of Sun Tzu---win battles with no need of fighting by soldiers. A large number of science and technology elites in China will be forced to immigrate to United States when China loses this battle without soldier fighting.

By then, it will be wise if those corrupted Chinese government officials realize that they must not try to immigrate to United States. It is because by then Americans will learn the same way from Qin Shi Huang to deal with these people. In history, Qin Shi Huang beheaded the last prime minister of Qi, who accepted tremendous amount of bribery from Qin before the ending of the war between the two nations, to comfort the people of Qi. United States will do the same to comfort the Chinese people. In three years some of these Chinese realtors will be in the same destiny of Louis XVI.

At last, allow me ask all of you a question of common sense: if today we Chinese might invent Japan 2.5 trillion U.S. dollars so that the Japanese society becomes few "fool" realtors take advantage of the majority of the Japanese middle class and lower class society, would you support this plan? [Translation comment: To understand the last question, please take into account that a large number of mainland Chinese do not like Japan. Moreover, the "fool" means that some people are willingly blinded because of money. Not really they are less intelligent in thinking.]

Liu Junluo

March 24, 2010

Core Interest

Interest is something with the power of attracting or holding one's attention. When one claims a thing being his core interest, however, he scarifies everything else to protect his holding of the thing of interest.

Dai Pingguo (Chinese: 戴秉国), a State Councilor of China, talked about the core interests of China in the recent US-China Strategic Economic Dialogue. He stressed that China’s core interests were "safeguarding its basic systems and national security, maintaining its sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as ensuring its sustained economic and social development." I will not comment on this statement. But let's think of what Hillary Clinton might have said if she had had to address the same question. What would have happen if she had said that the core interests of United States being security, territorial integrity, and economic growth?

Core interest is different from the most urgent issue to be solved.

Now let's think of another question. Were World Wide Web a nation, what would be its core interests? In the other words, what are the decisive reasons that drive the Web evolution?

I have a very short list in the following, and you may comment on your own opinions.

(1) A healthy environment of growing up that any new Web node may be popular by a definite period of time and by a definite amount of effort.

This is essential to the evolution of the Web. If the Web is solely a place where the rich gets richer, it can hardly evolve. There must be ways of balancing. It is not only because people want to be social that social networking becomes such a critical technology in the Web. The Web itself demands the technology for its evolution. The technology of social networking allows any newly produced Web resource (distinctive to the humans who produce the Web resource) to grow up being popular in definite period of time. It thus fosters the healthy growth of the Web.

The same philosophy is beneath the other key technologies in the current Web such as Web search and Web syndication. In the other words, the Web always demand the invention of new technologies that helps the growing popular of newly produced Web resources. Or we may interpret it in another way. If a company wants to abuse the technologies to formulate a pure rich gets richer pattern in the Web, it will fail in definite time of period as well.

(2) A fair environment of competition that the unpopular resources have chances of being popped up without the prerequisite of having been popular.

Believe it or not, unpopular represents creativity and innovation. The Web needs to foster the technologies that allow people to access the unpopular resources that may be kept unpopular forever.

This is a crucial topic especially to the society of Semantic Web or the community of linked data. A well linked web of data does not means the every piece of data in it is weighted evenly or can be accessed equally. When we request a semantics, some time we expect to get the most popular resources of the semantics and some other times we do not. More importantly, don't we need to add a layer of the innovative potential over all the linked resources so that it may facilitate the access to the innovative but unpopular mind?

June 4th

June 4th, 1989, I was in China. It is a date that had changed the history of modern China, in many aspects. In particular, it drew a line between an idealist China and a materialist China.

The picture on the right is a perfect illusion of the distinction. In the middle there stand two Premiers in Chinese history. The one in the front is Zhao Ziyang (Chinese: 赵紫阳), a Pre-June-4th Premier. Behind Zhao it is Wen Jiabao (Chinese: 温家宝), a Post-June-4th Premier (actually Wen is the current Premier of China). The picture was shot at the night of May 19th, 1989, when Zhao was trying to comfort the students in Tiananmen Square. At the meantime, neither of them was the Premier (Li Peng was the Chinese Premier in 1989). But Wen was the director of Zhao's office.

Zhao and Wen had very different personalities. Zhao was more or less an idealist that was similar to Mikhail Gorbachev of Soviet Union. In the mind of Zhao, China might not rise again until Chinese people could gain the political freedom. The thought liberation must be prior to the flourish of economy. In contrast to Zhao, Wen is more a materialist. Wen believes the economic growth be the first and the political freedom be the second. In his mind, it is fine to ask people to temporarily scarify their various freedom to exchange a better life in material satisfaction. The right of living is above all the other human rights, including the freedom to think; a typical philosophy of the extreme materialists.

It is not my duty to judge the correctness between the two thoughts. (The reader might judge it yourself.) Inevitably, however, this philosophical distinction significantly reformed China.

The majority of the youth generation in China before the June 4th were eager in fighting for gaining more freedom in all aspects of the nation. They were interested in national politics and dreamed of China to be an ideal society that might be governed by leveraging the collective voice of its people.

The majority of the youth generation after the June 4th, however, abandoned the former seemly intangible dream. They started to pay the most of their attention to earning money and enjoying the material life. They care less of the national politics but care more on individual interest. China does have achieved breathtaking progress in economy since then, while it has also paid heavily on the loss of morality national wide. On one hand, this period of Chinese history is a legend of economic growth. On the other hand, in the same period the nation had sold its soul. The absolute truth in China disappears. All truth becomes conditionally right.

Is this China what we expect? Is this China the best interest of all the Chinese people? The only thing that I can tell definitely is that China really could have been a totally different nation if there were no June 4th, 1989.

"Internet is not for Information, yet!" in China

Gang Lu has a brilliant post about microblogging in China. In the post, he shared that in China "Internet is not for Information, yet!" The quote is indeed a crucial point that all western Internet businesses must learn to be successful at China. Due to various reasons (especially the political reasons as well as some sort of historical tradition), Internet in China is not about information, it's about entertainment. This insight is a modern interpretation of a long-history idiom in Chinese history---莫谈国事 (do not talk on the affairs of state).


Until now, 莫谈国事 is still an important part of the life of Chinese. The emergence of World Wide Web (supposed to be able to change the custom) has not been able to change it yet. Lu's post tells us that the idiom has only extended its influence from the real world to the virtual world in China.

Xu Jinglei (Chinese: 徐静蕾), one of the most well-known celebrities in China and whose blog is known to be the No.1 personal blog in visiting numbers in China (and probably in the world). She is known to be a belle not only in her appearance, but also in her mind and brain. However, 莫谈国事 is also one of her maxim to ensure the popularity of her blog in China. In fact, the Chinese Characters 莫谈国事, reading from right to left, shown above is written by Miss Xu.

Certainly, however, it is not a duty for western Internet business to try to change the culture. By contrast, they need to learn to be customized for the culture to succeed.

Morality and Sustainable Development

Sustainable development is a critical issue in the current world. Especially to the newly developed nations such as China, how to really achieve a more sustainable mode of development is a central topic to the government. When the discussion of sustainable development is focusing on the issues such as environment and energy, another crucial issue is generally overlooked, i.e., morality!

A few days ago when I briefly introduce my understanding of China for the Thinking Space readers, I have mentioned that the general loss of morality in Chinese society would be a crisis for the future sustainable development of China. The recent news about the secretly substituted voice/face of two child singer/performer at the open ceremony of Beijing Olympics reconfirms the urgency of this issue. It is fine to have one performer at the front stage while another real singer sings at the back stage. It is, however, a shame not to tell public the truth at the first place. Someone criticizes that it is a disgrace to the spirit of Olympics. Indeed it is worse than a disgrace to Olympics. It is sad for the future of China, and hence it is a bad sign to the world.

An economic development cannot sustain without the protection of morality. It would otherwise simply cost too much to maintain the stability of a society when it is unevenly wealthy and immoral.

If a pretty and sweet 9-year-old "model child" could perform a fake singing at the stage so naturally without even a little bit shame on not mentioning the name of the real voice, what does this model represent? For tens of millions of Chinese children who listened to the song, watched the performance, and literally took the young girl as their model, what have they learned from this show?

If the new generation of China will take this performance as model, China is not a nation anybody should be afraid at all.

Immorality can never sustain continuous growth in healthy way. This is a lesson for a person, a nation, and for any company too.

Referenced resources:

• Sustainable development (Wikipedia)
• China: sustainable development gets priority (IPS news)
• China, how to understand this country? (Thinking Space)
• Olympic opening uses girl’s voice, not face (Yahoo! Sport)
  

Amazing Beauty

The open ceremony of Beijing Olympics was breathtaking, stunningly beautiful. Here are a few pictures shot from the sky. Let's enjoy them and memorize this great event.

Remarks on the slogan for Beijing Olympics

Tomorrow is the open ceremony of Beijing Olympics. The slogan of the game is "One World, One Dream." Nevertheless is it a well spoken perspective, it misses (but also indicates) a more important topic: do we also have "One Realization" to our "One Dream"?

Ironically, this slogan is an accurate description of the present China. We have no other choices but to live together in the same world. By living in the same world, we are truly capable of weaving a common dream such as getting better education, obtaining better medical care, being richer, and having the freedom of speaking. However, do we really have a uniform realization to the dream equally for every member of the society?

One World, One Dream. It is not enough to satisfy the poor hearts when their dreams have no hope to be realized.

One Dream, One Realization. This is actually the real slogan that Chinese people are looking for; it is also what people all over the world are expecting; and more importantly, it is the true spirit of Olympics! Olympics is the place where dreams become true rather than a place just for people to dream.

Can we declare the new slogan after the Olympics?

No matter how Chinese government will do, however, we as Web researchers are working on the goal illustrated by the new slogan. From Google to Facebook, we are experiencing to make the Web be more open and allow regular people to be able to realize their originally intangible dreams on the more and more user-friendly Web.

Thanks to Tim Berners-Lee, who started One Dream for every mankind in the One World. Thanks to Google, Facebook, and many other innovative Web companies, we are also approaching One Realization. That is, every human being in this world will have the inalienable rights to realize their dream!

China, how to understand this country?

This is the second time I post outside of the theme of this blog. The first time is at May this year after Si Chuan earthquake had taken away the life of tens of thousands people. This time is right before the open of Beijing Olympics. Both posts are about China, where I was born.

Beijing Olympics is an important event to Chinese people. It is a demonstration of the rise of new China after a nearly two-century-long painful and humiliating history. As a Chinese myself, I feel happy and proud of the nation and especially of the Chinese people. At the time when we enjoy the games, there is, however, a question worth of thinking---where will the country go afterward?

China, still a nation of mystery in many western people's mind, how to understand this country properly?

History---a double-edged sword

When mentioning China, the first thought jumped into mind is probably its long history. China is the country in the world that keeps the longest continuous record of a single nation. Many other great ancient nations such as ancient Egypt, ancient Babylonia, ancient Assyria, ancient Persia, ancient Greece, ancient India, and even Rome and the Ottoman Empire, have disappeared in history. China is the only nation that continuously survives from the ancient time till now. Though there are several dynasties in Chinese history, it is mainly about a new emperor overthrowing an old one. The nation continuously preserves one culture, one race, and one tradition.

China has a glorious history of culture. Among the many, the most well known contribution of Chinese to the world are Confucianism (Chinese: 儒家; pinyin: Rújiā) and the Four Great Inventions of ancient China (Chinese: 四大发明; pinyin: sì dà fāmíng), which are compass, gunpowder, papermaking, and printing. We can say that the Four Great Inventions had built an essential part of the foundation that brought the entire human world into the modern age, while at the same time it is Confucianism that preserves the spirit of Chinese tradition and keeps the nation uniquely survives over thousands of years.

The ancient Chinese culture is also the foundation of the oriental culture. From Japan, Korea to Vietnam and other southeastern Asia countries, there are many marks of ancient Chinese culture intrinsically in any of these individual oriental cultural traditions. Informally, if the tradition of Rome represents the western culture, the tradition of China represents the eastern culture. By this mean, the history of China is truly a wealth for not only Chinese but also all human beings.

But history, especially long history, does not bring only positive effects. To China, its long history is also a burden.

For hundreds of years, Confucianism brings the country a comparatively harmonious public environment. By the instructions from Confucius (Chinese: 孔夫子; pinyin: Kǒng Fūzǐ), a harmonious society is the one that "master be like master, servant be like servant, father be like father, and son be like son. (Chinese: 君君、臣臣、父父、子子)" Confucius concluded that if in a society everybody just be the best of the role he is, it must be a stable and harmonious society. This theory thus becomes the foundation of governing in Chinese history till today. Because of the society-wide harmony and stability brought by the Confucianism, in short time period (with respect to history, i.e., several hundred years) Chinese people were able to live well and have the sufficient supplement for technological invention and business development. In this sense, Confucianism is the reason behind the glory of ancient Chinese culture.

However, does this philosophy continuously brings only the positive impact to the nation, even after thousands of years? Unfortunately, the answer is no.

In Confucius' harmonious theory, innovation is, however, generally discouraged since by essence any innovation is a rebel to the present tradition. Innovation theoretically contradicts to that "master be like master, servant be like servant, father be like father, and son be like son." On the contrary, innovation is to encourage servant to be master and to support son to be father. Due to this conflict, innovations, especially the technological innovations that are the momentum of culture evolution, gradually lost its driving force in Chinese culture. After two thousand years of Confucianism, the ability of innovation in China was nearly disappeared. Such a loss directly caused the misery of Chinese history in the nearest two centuries.

Now, ostensibly China is moving back to this old Chinese tradition after the painful Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in the last century. Chinese President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao have led the so-called Hu-Wen New Administration in order to bring China a new harmonious society (Chinese: 和谐社会; pinyin: héxié shèhuì). Has the new administration learned from the history and would be able to avoid the negative side of Confucianism so that China is entering another glorious period of time? We hope so and let the history itself tell.

Communist Party---where debates are

When talking about the modern China, we cannot avoid a sensitive topic---Chinese Communist Party (CCP). From the supporters' point, CCP is the savior of China from the hand of intruders as well as the hope to the future of China. From the adversaries' point, CCP is an ugly monster that humiliates its people, discards basic human rights, and is a factor of instability in the world. Chinese Communist Party, the term itself is where many troubles start. In order to understand New China, we must understand CCP, how this party governs the nation, why this party can continuously govern the nation, and how to look for the future.

Nearly from its beginning, Chinese Communist Party is not about the real communism invented by Marx and extended by Lenin. Chinese style communism is actually a modern-age Confucianism. The essence of Maoism (Chinese: 毛泽东思想; pinyin: Máo Zédōng Sīxiǎng) is class struggle, in which reflects Confucius' teaching that every class of people must willingly stay at its natural position. That is, the ruling class (originally the industrial workers) be like leading class, the auxiliary ruling class (originally the peasants) be like auxiliary ruling class, and the ruled class (originally the landlords and the capitalists) be like ruled class. United Front (Chinese: 统一战线; pinyin: tǒng yī zhàn xiàn) is the fundamental policy of CCP. This policy is very much different from the classless society asked by Marxism or Leninism.

Through United Front, CCP governs the nation. CCP is very good at uniting a greater percentage of allies to fight against "a small truck" (Chinese: 一小撮) of adversaries. In order to reach the state of United Front, CCP is negotiable at anything, even if the thing might be "fundamental" in communist theory because indeed nothing is more fundamental than United Front. This essential difference distinguishes CCP from many other communist parties, such as the former Soviet Union Communist Party. And this is why many other communist parties argue that CCP is not the real communism; and truly they are right! CCP is not really about standard Marxism. By contrast, Confucianism is its core while Marxism is just the cloth.

Using any method and prepared to make any compromise to collapse opponents' union so that our side outnumbers the enemy, this is the philosophy of United Front, and this is why CCP can continuously govern China. CCP is a true master of compromising and uniting (and this is also the spirit of Chinese culture). Western political analysts often say that there are millions of city workers out of their jobs and the Chinese government cannot last long in this situation. Millions of adversaries is enough to overthrow the government of any western country. But it is far less than enough to throw down CCP because the party has successfully united billions of Chinese peasants in the countryside into its United Front against the city adversaries. Why are the peasants in countryside willing to join the side of CCP? The tradition of Confucianism still works.

Believe it or not, or dislike it or not, CCP will keep on its dominating power at China in the predictable future. Hence no serious business or political decisions at present should count on the assumption that CCP would be out of the stage. The only thing that is countable is changes happening inside the party. When more and more Chinese learn from western culture and when the influence of Confucianism starts to decay, China will be better and better though it is still governed by the CCP.

Morality---the real crisis

The real crisis at the modern China is not CCP but the general lack of morality.

Though its origin is debating, morality is a fundamental element of human society. A society may engage wealthiness in short time period by immorality. Any sustainable growth of human society, however, can never be kept long without morality.

In order to preserve morality, people must believe in the existence of the absolute objective truth. Moreover, the absolute objective truth must have the power to suppress any evil. In the other words, people have to at least believe in the existence of God, no matter how the God may be defined in their mind. Atheism fundamentally contradicts to morality.

It is not hard to explain this contradiction. To real atheists, they trust nothing more than themselves. Even though some time they may admire somebody so much that they become the followers of the person, it is still they themselves who make the decision instead of the followed one being God (and hence the followers will have no other choices but to follow). Therefore, to the end what the atheists truly trust is only the judgments made by themselves. Atheists are the God of themselves. By being their own God, morality becomes private toy since everybody may have his own standard of it. Derived from the former statement, absolute objective morality does not exist.

Unfortunately, both Confucianism and communism belong to atheism. Confucianism tells that it is generally impossible to understand the absolute truth; hence we do not need to waste time on thinking of this mission impossible. By contrast, we only need to take care of the things we can handle and handle them properly. Confucianism is an implicit atheism. On the other hand, communism explicitly declares the nonexistence of God.

The coupling of Confucianism and communism is probably the worst combination ever in the world in terms of morality. Communism declares that God does not exist, and Confucianism forbids people to rethink whether God exists. Therefore, the atheism in modern China reaches its extreme. Individualism of morality is the most popular philosophy in modern China.

"I don't care if it's a white cat or a black cat. It's a good cat so long as it catches mice." The most well known quote by the former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping is a typical example of the modern Chinese philosophy. The value of anything is decided by its immediate consequence. The potential impact into the future is unimportant since we may "not be able to" predict.

The sustainable development of China is under serious question due to the gradual loss of public morality. This is the real crisis.

Censorship---a moral issue

Since Thinking Space is about World Wide Web, I contribute my last thought of China on the topic of Web content censorship.

The worst part of censorship is you cannot say what the worst part of censorship is under censorship.

Many people in western countries criticize the general Web content censorship policy in China. The Golden Shield Project (Chinese: 金盾工程; pinyin: jīndùn gōngchéng) is the name of the online content censorship plan. It actually blocks many popular western sites such as Wikipedia and Blogger (it means that my posts are generally outreached by the Chinese people, what a pity, and I learned it after I had started up this blog for more than a year, even more pity, sign... )

The purpose of content censorship is to filter out "bad content" so as to maintain the purity of the Web. You can say that it is quite a moral desire, especially when we just discussed the crisis of morality in China. The question is, however, which content is "bad"?

By enforcing the filtering of serious political critiques but overlooking the widespread of pornographic information in Chinese online environment, the original moral intuition has become totally an anti-moral action. By this mean, we must say against to this censorship policy.

The relationship between World Wide Web and morality is a very complicated issue. Censorship is just one of them. Should the Web be continued under no government? Should we allow ourselves, especially our children, be exposed under free attack from the true morally bad content? Do we indeed require any sort of public censorship in addition to the parent control button on individual Web browsers? They are big debatable questions. To the best of our expectation, we hope the Web will be more and more a healthy place for us to explore than a disgusting platform of trashes.

LinkedIn to Chinese market, oppotunity and challenge

My friend Jia Jiang, currently working for LinkedIn on its China marketing strategy, visited me recently. In his visit, we shared how LinkedIn might enter China---the largest growing market in the world. Linked into China, how many opportunities and challenges the company will face?

Social Network, the difference between Chinese and western culture

In western culture, social is part of the life. In Chinese culture, however, social is the life.

I have been at United States for more than 10 years. Before it, I was in China. For years I have observed the cultural difference between the two countries. Certainly in both countries social networking is a very important part of normal person's regular life. There is, however, some subtle but critical difference. United States encourages individual heroism. Social networking is thus auxiliary to this general goal. China, on the other hand, encourages collaboration but discourages individual heroism in general. In China social networking is thus the goal. When facing a problem, a typical American thought is to solve it by oneself or otherwise engage his social network under his direction to solve it. By contrast, a typical Chinese thought is to engage one's social network to solve it and make himself be a member of the collaborative team.

Philosophically, Chinese style social networking is based on the Doctrine of the Mean (Chinese: 中庸; pinyin: Zhōngyōng). Chinese people believe in that if one tree is higher above all the others, wind will destroy it first (Chinese: 木秀于林，风必摧之; pinyin: mù xiù yú lín，fēng bì cuī zhī). Hence the principle of surviving but also living well is to follow Doctrine of the Mean---be neither too outstanding nor too insignificant. This philosophy is the basis of Chinese social networking.

Such a subtle difference actually indicates some fundamental difference between Chinese social networking and western social networking. If a western social networking company wants to enter and make itself succeed in the Chinese market, it must not only understand the difference but also know how to adjust their particular marketing strategy and even technological user interface design respectively.

LinkedIn, strengths and weaknesses with respect to Chinese market

LinkedIn, as well as all the other western social networking companies, advocates individual-centric social networks. In particular, LinkedIn makes much effort on composing individual's professional profiles in order to strengthen formal business connections among its users.

The strengths of LinkedIn with respect to Chinese market are obvious. In general, western software companies have advanced technologies better than their Chinese competitors. As one of the early adopters of Web 2.0, LinkedIn has strong technology team as well as excellent management team who really understand Web 2.0 in principles and technical details. LinkedIn has successfully branded itself to be the leader of professional social networks. In its particular domain, LinkedIn profile is more effective than either Facebook profile or MySpace profile.

Lack of the elements of Chinese culture is an immediate weaknesses for not only LinkedIn but also all the other western social networking sites which plans to enter Chinese market. No western companies can succeed in China by simply translating their sites into Chinese, especially if they are the social networking sites. (Hence I don't expect the recently reported Facebook's initial plan of entering Chinese market would be a success.) My friend Gang Lu recently wrote at Read/WriteWeb a post about the Facebook clones in China. One reason that many of these Chinese clones of Facebook are expected to grow better than Facebook China is that every one of them has customized their sites with certain unique Chinese cultural elements that the official Facebook China does not have. If LinkedIn expects to enter China, the culture customization is the first crucial barrier it has to overcome.

Another specific problem of LinkedIn entering China is its requirements of filling in detailed career information in profiles. Certainly this requirement represents the value of LinkedIn services. Such a request, however, could be seen as a serious thread by the Chinese government. Many foreign observers are surprised that there are much fewer LinkedIn copycats than the Facebook copycats in China. Indeed, it is not surprising at all from a native Chinese's eye. The Chinese government would simply not tolerate any private company to collect sensitive employment records of all Chinese people, let it alone a foreign company. In tradition, (due to the so-call "national security") only the government or certain authorized public organizations may have the privilege of owning personal profiles with detailed career information (Chinese: 个人档案). This is why even Chinese people feel difficult to copy the business model of LinkedIn in China. This issue might be a killer for the future of LinkedIn in China.

Can LinkedIn succeed in China?

Despite of all the problems, LinkedIn still has its chance to succeed in Chinese market. The key of success is, however, a point I mentioned at the beginning---Doctrine of the Mean (中庸)! The following are several particular suggestions for LinkedIn to enter China.

1) Never ever claim itself to be the leader of professional social networks in Chinese market.

2) Narrow down its domains of professional social networks to only the insensitive realms. Explicitly prohibit the adding of career information from such as army, nuclear plants, police department, and various other sensitive, national security related government departments. Narrow the use of LinkedIn China to pure business, especially on the realms such as the Sino-American exporting business.

3) Change the individual-centric LinkedIn profiles to group-centric LinkedIn profiles. Intentionally decrease the significance of individuals in the LinkedIn network of China. By contrast, significantly increase the weight of groups in the LinkedIn network of China. Such a change may require a major re-design of LinkeIn China user interface.

4) Add the unique Chinese cultural elements to the LinkedIn China site.

I must say that some of my suggestions are indeed controversial. But they are critical for western companies to succeed in China, not only just about LinkedIn.

First of all, any attempt of monopolizing Chinese market on information management may not survive long, even if it would succeed once. Chinese government had tolerated foreign companies to monopolize the TV set market in China for many years, and it is now even tolerating the foreign monopoly of gold mines in China. But it would never tolerate foreign monopoly of information access or information management in China. Neither TV set nor gold mine is directly about people. But information management is directly about people. Loss of a few money would not be pleasant but it is tolerable. Loss of the control of people, however, would be a disaster in the present China, and thus it is absolutely intolerable. LinkedIn must abandon the unrealistic dream of being the leader of professional social networks in Chinese market.

By not being the general leader does not mean it would not be profitable. Due to the large population in China, LinkedIn China in vertical could be a great success. By narrowing its realm to several most profitable realms, LinkedIn may have more focused design of its Chinese user interface with unique cultural elements and improved the quality of its services that are then more focused.

Furthermore, by emphasizing the group-centric in contrast to individual-centric LinkedIn may help its Chinese subscribers release the pressure of disclosing information for a foreign company. Actually, it has been a general law of 中庸 in China since ancient time. Let LinkedIn China be in a chinese-style infrastructure of group guiding individuals in contrast to in the western-style infrastructure of individual composing groups. I guess the same philosophy may even be helpful for re-modeling many of the current Chinese social network sites too, if they want to get a break out of the highly competitive SNS market in China.

The last question: what is group-centric with respect to individual-centric in social networking? I may write another post dedicating to this topic later.