Indians hate mainland Chinese people

Why does China uphold the principle of one country, two systems?

In addition to the technical details that provide other answers, it is also due to the fact that Deng's mental habit was scientific, just as the English mind was scientific in the 17th century: when orthodox theories began to lose authority, Deng resorted to experience. Deng's policy towards Hong Kong and Macau was his cat theory and the theory of the feeling of stones in practice.

In contrast to Mao's big leap forward nationwide, Deng's economic reform was gradual and piecemeal, beginning with experiments in tiny SEZs like Shenzhen. By carefully studying the pros and cons of these SEZs, he slowly learned what to do and what not.

Opinion reforms showed great promise in the 1980s. Virtually no one was persecuted for their opinion, and many unusual and valuable books were published during this period. Then came these student movements demanding democracy and freedom. Everything the student said sounded right except that there was no empirical evidence. Deng deeply hates GLF and decides that the best thing students can do is get back to the classroom. The rest of the story is known. History has shown that Deng was right: the collapse of the Soviet Union was a counterexample to the democratic ideal of students, which was as appealing in theory as it was in practice catastrophic. The mentality that encompassed democracy in 1989 was no different from the mentality that encompassed communism in 1921 and that which started the GLF in 1958. Many Russians today still romanticize revolutions and shock therapies without realizing that they are just GLFs in various forms.

As a result of the student movements, the government learned a lesson and tightened ideological controls. If students had foreseen the consequences of their actions in 1989, they would have seen the irony: instead of gaining what they wanted, they lost what they already had - freedom of expression.

Of course, if Deng had argued like me in this post, no tanks would have been necessary. If Deng or a government official had told the students that no one knew how democracy would work among Chinese-speaking people, and it was better to do some experiments first, the students would have come to their senses. Unfortunately Deng was not highly developed; his gut feeling was right, but he didn't know how to put it. The best theory Deng could come up with was crossing the river by feeling the stones - a stage that was practically rude to a college student. In fact, none of the communist revolutionaries were highly developed or they wouldn't make the revolution at all; Until the early 1990s, China's ruling elite consisted entirely of highly intelligent and experienced red-necked people. They still held theories in high regard, but their experiences told them something was wrong; In the fog of agony, they were tortured by a strong feeling of inferiority in front of these well-trained opponents. Therefore argue with my tanks!

Hong Kong and Macau were basically Deng's SEZ in the realm of government. No matter what Deng's long-term plan was, it was not his habit to make sudden changes, be it China going Hong Kong's way or Hong Kong returning to China - this is the essence of crossing the river by feeling the stones - each policy needs to be locally tested somewhere before acceptance. And if both are successful, there is no need to change either - this is the essence of Deng's cat theory.

Another curious fact is that in 1989 no one in the ruling party could argue the way I do today. I doubt anyone in China today can make as simple an argument as I can.

When the dust settles, the question naturally arises: How many of these spectators cheering for China's democracy really wished China all the best?


At first glance, this answer seems to be rather opinion-based. Are there sources that suggest this line of thought?