Essay Preview: MrReport this essayIn the massacre of 1989 Tian An men Square. 50000 students took it to the streets on april 29th of Beijing and protested peacefully. On May 4, approximately 100,000 students and workers marched in Beijing making demands for free media reform and a formal dialogue between the authorities and student-elected representatives. The government rejected the proposed dialogue, only agreeing to talk to members of appointed student organizations. On May 13, large groups of students occupied Tiananmen Square and started a hunger strike, demanding the government withdraw the accusation made in the Peoples Daily editorial and begin talks with the student representatives. Hundreds of students went on hunger strike and were supported by hundreds of thousands of protesting students and residents of Beijing, which lasted for a week. Although the government declared martial law on May 20, the government failed to enforce it and the demonstrations continued. The hunger strike was approaching the end of the third week, and the government resolved to end the matter before deaths occurred. After deliberation among Communist party leaders, the use of military force to resolve the crisis was ordered, and Zhao Ziyang was ousted from political leadership as a result of his support for the student demonstrators. The Communist Party then decided to stop the situation before it escalated further. Soldiers and tanks from the 27th and 28th Armies of the Peoples Liberation Army were sent to take control of the city. Although the government ordered all civilians in Beijing to remain indoors by numerous television and loudspeaker broadcasts, these warnings were not always heeded, and many peaceful protestors and innocent bystanders were attacked by the Peoples Liberation Army soldiers; the ensuing violence resulted in huge numbers of civilian casualties and some army deaths. The Chinese government acknowledged that a few hundred people died.
The crushing of the 1989 social movement in Tiananmen Square was a turning point in Chinese history. The movement was far bigger than the liberal, student protest we all saw before the worlds news cameras; it extended right across the people. The destruction of the movement unblocked Chinas transition to the market economy, but the state system remained fundamentally authoritarian and inequalities have grown. After 1978, Maos successor DENG Xiaoping and other leaders focused on market-oriented economic development and by 2000 output had quadrupled. For much of the population, living standards have improved dramatically and the room for personal choice has expanded, yet political controls remain tight. We really dont know the details
[quote=DENG]Deng Xiaoping, founder of the China Economic Reform Party (“ECRB”) said that the recent experience in the country as a whole has been one of the best examples in his time because the regime has not only successfully addressed this social problem, but also dealt with it without being too restrictive.
The first line of defense that the regime has taken has been to promote equality and justice for all, not just those with higher incomes and the working poor at risk, rather than to impose the economic system on everyone…[quote]In their efforts, however, the regime has never had a hard hand to make progress or be open to dialogue. Instead, all of the problems found in China’s industrial complex can be seen on the one hand, with the exception of the problem of the environment, social and environmental justice, and the issue of political control and repression.
Thus, in order to have a more stable political system, political freedoms, social order and development, the Communist Party, as it is today, has been unable to put a stop to the growing issues of poverty and inequality. The Chinese Communist Party of 1989–2000 has had a more cautious approach. It has not tried to establish political norms and enforce them. It has pursued strict standards of behaviour and has managed to maintain a relatively moderate level of development in the country. In fact, in a number of areas, the country has even begun to develop the social rights and social protections promised by the 1989 CPC; however, the state leadership has not been able to accomplish this level of development, and has not had any time to adjust to this level of development.
The social policy reforms that have helped achieve this have not been adopted at all. As shown by the fact that some of the social reforms have been implemented much more slowly, as I discuss on this page and here, then this may have been a mistake. For one thing, even the first of the reforms had to be implemented more slowly because the political framework of the time was so developed.[/quote]
It is quite possible that these social reforms would have resulted in greater prosperity and prosperity across the entire country. This may have been the case for people across the country, but most of them are simply people in poor health. It is much better to have a liberal system than to have a socialist system. It is much nicer to have such a system than to have one with a strict set of social and environmental criteria that have the result of hindering the whole society and therefore hindering even the existence of society’s most disadvantaged members. If the latter can be accomplished, this should be expected. Furthermore, the policies of many countries have been completely implemented in tandem with the economic reforms of the past decade, which provide a much better framework for the future direction of society. Nevertheless, it cannot be considered to be a good or even desirable policy. In other words, there is simply no room for it given the lack of social democratic and anti