'One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.'The above was not written by the speaker of China's Communist Party; it was not published on China Daily or the Global Times. It was written by Thomas Friedman and appeared in yesterday's New York Times. Friedman is so in love with central-planning, that he is willing to give up his so-called liberal ideology and dismiss China's ruthless and violent control mechanism - which holds 20% of the world's population under considerable oppression - as a system with some "drawbacks", led by "enlightened people".
Just to recap, Friedman is talking about a country in which people do not have the freedom to decide how many kids to have, which city to live in, where to spend their holidays, or which web sites to visit. They are also denied the right to voice their opinion on a variety of issues, and are required to register with the authorities if they wish to publish a blog, leaflet, or spend 30 minutes in an internet cafe.
It is a country that puts people in jail for publishing an unlicensed web site and executes between 1,700 to 5,000 of its own citizens each year. A country that denies its citizens the freedom to protest, congregate, or have a religious affiliation. China is definitely making some progress, but it is not exactly an ideal of 'enlightened' government, and its moral failures are far from being simple 'drawbacks'.
Unfortunately, Friedman is not alone. As Ian Buruma points out in a recent article, 'China's economic success is convincing too many leaders that citizens... want to be treated like children'. This ideological shift is already showing itself in the calls for increased government planning in the US, as well as the shift of geopolitical power towards China. Taiwan, for example, recently announced that it will not apply for a UN seat this year, for the first time in 17 years. We can expect to see more and more political and ideological deferral to Chinese interests as we progress deeper into the crisis.
All this has happened before. In 1929, American pundits were mourning the failure of capitalism and listing the achievements of central planning in other countries. Back then, commentators were impressed by the Soviet Union's high employment rate, and its incredible environmental and infrastructure initiatives. These included the Dnieprostroy hydroelectric plant (the largest of its kind in Europe), the 950 mile Siberian-Turkestan railway, and the Volga-Don water canal. Other achievements of that period included Nazi Germany's 100% employment rate, Hitler's autobahn (highway) projects, and Fascist Italy's train system and efficient cooperation between government and business.
As you may remember, this type of talk and deferral to Soviet and Nazi interests facilitated the survival of two of the most monstrous dictatorships in human history.
Another important thing to keep in mind is that once you look beyond the superficial indicators, China's model - just like the models of its predecessors in this ideological battle - is not really working that well. It is wasteful, inefficient, and channels huge amount of capital to all the wrong places. This too is not new. As John Tamny points out on Real Clear Markets, during the Cold War, 'the Soviets [and Chinese] weren't so much lying about economic growth' but 'output was and is only part of the equation'. and so while the two countries 'produced a great deal of "stuff" during the Cold War years... they did so in incredibly wasteful ways'. This incredible waste ultimately led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The bottom line is that wealth is still a factor of production: A given society is only as wealthy as it is productive. Now, China might be doing a lot of production, but, compared to the US, it is far from being productive. Unfortunately, the US is also not as productive as it appears to be - or as it appeared to be until not long ago - since a big chunk of its economic growth during the past thirty years is made of rising asset and stock prices, driven by constant and aggressive expansion of the monetary base (more on this here, here, and here).
How big is the gap between America's current GDP and it's real productive capacity? This is the 9 trillion dollar question, and one that I do not have an answer for. Furthermore, America currently seems to work hard to expand this gap instead letting the business cycle take its course and cut things down to size.
So, on the ideological front, the PRC is the new USSR. But is America still America? I sure hope so.
It is a very good article for a ,(far), right wing web site from the bible belt ,but everyone that ever visited China and knows just a bit about the history of the Soviet Union knows that a sentence like :So, on the ideological front, the PRC is the new USSR, is a very big joke.
Again it seems you have a certain kind of fantasy about China ,( and America as well), and you don't let the facts to confuse you.
Your
-
and dismiss China's ruthless and violent control mechanism - which holds 20% of the world's population under considerable oppression
Yet 95% of them feel optimistic about the direction of the country. China's government could use improvement, but compared to India or Brazil? Or America in Iraq? Yeah I'll pass on that so-called "democracy" for basic survival any day.
just like the models of its predecessors in this ideological battle - is not really working that well.
Central planning, protectionism etc didn't work well for Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan?
The highest growth rates in human history isn't "working well"?
I guess India's democracy works best. Tell me, what exactly is your alternative? Keep in mind the number one power has a hardon for destroying China while you're thinking.
the PRC is the new USSR
Except it's completely different in every imaginable way aside from name. Other than that, yes.
David: Looks like you didn't really understand the article, and are barking up the wrong tree.
I did not say that China is practically similar to the USSR or Nazi Germany (although there are plenty of similarities on the political and economic level). I was saying that China today poses a similar ideological challenge to the basic American values of free-trade and liberal democracy, as the challenge posed by the USSR in the 1930s. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Captcha:
- When China's citizens will have free access to information, freedom of movement, and freedom of speech - I would be happy to know that 95% of them are happy with their government. At the moment, this number does not mean much.
- What happened in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan is very different. They were developed under the auspices and protection of the world's largest liberal democracy, and large parts of their policies were dictated by that liberal democracy (and Japan's constitution was actually drafted by the Americans). We've already discussed this at length in the past, so you will excuse me for not going over all the story again.
- As for India etc.: again, using examples of other failed states is not an excuse. And if you do want to look for comparisons, please do tell me who are the world's richest countries per capita, and what type of political system they are built on.
- The full sentence is "on the ideological front, the PRC is the new USSR". Very different from what you try were trying to make it sound like. See my response to David above.
Thanks!
And by the way, being classified as a "right wing bible group" member is much better than being an apologist for dictatorship + as far as I remember, the bible belt right wing supported Bush's expansion of government and his various military adventures, which are exactly the opposite of the values I (try to) promote. Anyway... thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Great piece and an excellent reminder that the world must remain ever vigilent (not enamored) of dicatorships, however allegedly enlighted.
Thomas Friedman simply said the Chinese political system is well-suited for pushing through sensitive but important policies. Why is this so unreasonable? As you said, he isn't alone. First Solar's CEO, Mike Ahearn, said China's system has advantages for solar projects. When talking about the new Inner Mongolia project, he said it would be nearly impossible to install a solar field of this size in the United States. There's plenty of land, but there's not enough near transmission lines, Ahearn said. Efforts to build new power lines are regularly stymied by competing interests from government agencies, environmental groups and disgruntled residents. China's political system cuts through this and clearly has advantages in developing renewable projects.
Dan: Thanks, and welcome back.
Chris: If you focus only on one or few industries or issues, at a specific and limited period of time, there is no doubt that central planning is very attractive. However, subjugating individual will to a few projects of this kind necessarily means subjugating people's basic rights and freedoms as well.
As noted above, the Soviets had some of the most remarkable environmental and infrastructure projects humanity has ever since. In that aspect, in fact, they were more advanced than the Chinese and led the world in a few very important scientific fields.
Still, their people were forced to live under considerable oppression, and the whole system ended up imploding - not despite the remarkable achievements, but because of them; because when a poor country spends so much money on "central" goals, the people end up not having enough to eat.
Big Business, by the way, has historically been a big fan of central planning, so there is no surprise that the CEO you mentioned is drooling over China's ambitious plans. Big Business is also usually color blind when it comes to ideology, and judges everything in terms of efficiency and 'fairness'. The most poignant example is IG Farben, one of Nazi Germany's largest companies, who not only supported Hitler's regime, but actually built a big factory next to Aushcwitz in order to take advantage of the slave labor provided by the inmates. Many other big companies, including ones from Allied countries, did similar business or did business with companies that did.
I strongly encourage you to read what Nobel Prize Laureate (they used to give these to serious thinkers...) Friedrich A. Hayek had to say on the matter:
More than 65 years ago, F.A. Hayek wrote in The Road to Serfdom about the misleading nature of centrally-planned development. He noted that 'every one of the many things which, considered in isolation...would be possible to achieve in a planned society creates enthusiasts for planning'. Furthermore, it would be 'foolish to deny' that people living in such societies enjoy many good things which they 'owe entirely to planning'. Hayek, an Austrian exile in London, used contemporary examples to illustrate his point: Both Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy had centrally-planned economies, and some of the most 'magnificent roads' and machinery in the world.
However, he noted, it would be 'foolish' to 'quote such instances of technical excellence in particular fields as evidence of the general superiority of planning. It would be more correct to say that such extreme technical excellence out of line with general conditions is evidence of a misdirection of resources'. Put differently, when a poor and oppressive country invests a large amount of its resources in one place, it means that another part of the economy is being neglected. This, in turn, leads to imbalances which hinder overall development. Of course, free societies also suffer from over-investment in different sectors, but these are less pronounced, and are periodically corrected by market forces.
It is no coincidence, Hayek notes, that 'experts' and men and women who 'devoted their lives to a single task' are charmed by the idea of central planning. 'The hopes they place in planning, however, are not the result of a comprehensive view of society, but rather of a very limited view, and often the result of a great exaggeration of the importance of the ends that they place foremost'.
When China's citizens will have free access to information, freedom of movement, and freedom of speech - I would be happy to know that 95% of them are happy with their government. At the moment, this number does not mean much.
When America's information "providers" aren't 100% bought by corporate or political interests I will believe America is a truly free economy. And once Europe and other countries stop being America's lapdog/vassal, I will believe they are free as well.
They were developed under the auspices and protection of the world's largest liberal democracy
America's "protection" doesn't amount to much when China can protect itself, unlike those other countries. More specifically, China already gets more FDI and remittances from the Overseas Chinese than American aid to all of the Tigers and Japan combined, and China has more natural resources, people and land than all of them combined.
China simply does not *need* outside support as much as other East Asian economies.
As for India etc.: again, using examples of other failed states is not an excuse. And if you do want to look for comparisons, please do tell me who are the world's richest countries per capita, and what type of political system they are built on.
Built on or what political system was grafted onto them? The G8 is comprised of all imperialist and colonialist powers. So I'd say mass murderism and slaveocracy.
Look at all of the failed states. What type of political system are they actually built on? India is one that has been a democracy ever since it has started developing.
Other success stories include Haiti, Russia and Brazil. The biggest failure of democracy has to be Germany before 1933.
As noted above, the Soviets had some of the most remarkable environmental and infrastructure projects humanity has ever since. In that aspect, in fact, they were more advanced than the Chinese and led the world in a few very important scientific fields.
This is because they diverted a huge amount of resources to science and military. Spectacular, amusing, but ultimately it killed them.
On the other hand, Taiwan under the KMT, SK under dictatorship, Japan under America-sponsored LDP one-party rule, Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew, and China right now are going economy first everything else later.
but these are less pronounced, and are periodically corrected by market forces.
Like deregulated banks?
@Dan
Great piece and an excellent reminder that the world must remain ever vigilent (not enamored) of dicatorships, however allegedly enlighted.
Is this why the "Western world" supported Franco, Pinochet, Ceausescu, Mobutu Sese Seko, Papa Doc, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, Chiang Kai-shek, Syngman Rhee, Suharto, Ferdinand Marcos, Hussein, Musharraf? etc?
Is this why America, France, Spain, Canada and Australia continue to grind their indigenous peoples into dust? Are they afraid of real dissent or democracy?
Thanks, Captcha.
I think you are missing a few simple points (and letting your emotions get the better of you):
- US Citizens have far broader access to information and freedom to voice their opinion than the citizens of China. If your point is that this is not the case, let me know.
- I never said that America is a "truly free economy". In fact, I have written extensively about why I think that it isn't.
- Pointing fingers at other country's problems does not mean that your country does not have problems. This is not a mathematical equation, and the fact that the US has a flawed system, does not mean that China's system is not flawed, or even close to being as good as America's.
- More importantly, while you seem to try to favor China and justify its actions at all cost, I am not here to represent the US of A; I am here to seek clarity and truth and write about oppression in all its guises and forms - whether it is in the US, China, or anywhere else.
- The fact that China is developing a strong army is not an advantage for peaceful development, it is a disadvantage. America's military umbrella helped protect Taiwan, Korea, and Japan from themselves, more than from anyone else. Conversely, you can see how the military development of Japan, Italy, and Germany worked to their "advantage" during the first half of the 20th century.
- As previously mentioned, none of the countries you stated as models for China's growth - Japan, Korea, Taiwan - are comparable since they were a priori guided by the US, forced to do certain reforms, and were hindered from becoming military societies. Singapore might be the exception, but it is a small country, its institutions were built by the brits, and its population absorbed western middle class values over long periods of occupation and development. So, Singapore's development began long before Singapore became independent.
- As a fact, no country has ever reached the living standards enjoyed by western countries without adopting a liberal democratic system OR significant guidance and support from one of the largest liberal democracies. Let me know if this is not correct.
- As for Franco, Pinochet, etc. - you are absolutely right. But that does not justify your apologies on behalf of China's own tyrants. After all, the CCP has killed more people than all of the leaders you listed, combined.
Thanks!
- US Citizens have far broader access to information and freedom to voice their opinion than the citizens of China. If your point is that this is not the case, let me know.
It indeed is not the case. "Broader access to information", what information? About Paris Hilton's sex tape or Michael Jackson's death? Americans have access to a lot of things, such as excellent pharmaceuticals, world-class universities, clean and healthy food, and a wide-array of top notch consumer products.
But do all of them utilize these things? Well, not really. Lots of garbage is pushed onto the average person by corporate interests leveraging mass media as a tool for thought control. This much is avoided in China because CCTV has very little credibility.
Pointing fingers at other country's problems does not mean that your country does not have problems.
My point exactly.
I am here to seek clarity and truth and write about oppression in all its guises and forms
And I'm the Magnificent Bubblegum King, nice to meet you.
The fact that China is developing a strong army is not an advantage for peaceful development, it is a disadvantage
I guess it's an "advantage" for America to have a larger military budget than all other countries combined, which gave them the confidence to strike at Iraq and the Muslim world.
America's military umbrella helped protect Taiwan, Korea, and Japan from themselves, more than from anyone else.
Not China, Russia, and North Korea? America used these nations as a buffer against Communism in "Asia". It was more of a mutual thing.
Japan, Korea, Taiwan - are comparable since they were a priori guided by the US, forced to do certain reforms
Some of these reforms were disastrous. As for being "guided" by the US, see the above.
its institutions were built by the brits, and its population absorbed western middle class values over long periods of occupation and development. So, Singapore's development began long before Singapore became independent.
Singapore is nowhere near as corrupt, crime-ridden, incompetent or resource-rich as Britain. I'd say their success depends more on their "Chinese-ness" than anything.
After all, the CCP has killed more people than all of the leaders you listed, combined.
Counting famines? Most likely not- and if you take into account the fact that the CCP had no direct control over many Red Guard factions, the kill rate diminishes. "X'ed more people" arguments are silly, applied to China by people with an agenda, regardless of which side they take. I.e "x hundred million lifted out of poverty!". Sounds very big but it's a whole lot of nonsense, really. It's debatable how many Mao killed. Loathsome as he was, he never approached the ruthless efficiency of some of America's allies. e.g 100,000-300,000 "leftists" killed in South Korea in the span of a few days, 2007 declassified documents say.
Regardless, Mao is ancient history. If you want to play that game, America's annihilation of 98% of the Native American population is by far the most obscene crime against humanity ever committed (median estimate: 15-20 million killed)
Captha! I see you are in peak form!
- The most important point you are still missing is that I am not here to defend America or any of its past and present action. I understand that you have a lot of things to vent, but I might not be the right partner, since I am not American, and I also have a lot to say about America's modus operandi. Still, I can clearly see that America's system provided more prosperity nd more freedom to its citizens - and to the citizens of other countries, than other other system. Indeed, a lot of it is based on violence - but I don't think that China or Russia failed because of their reluctance to use violence...
- As for Paris Hilton etc. - they choose to watch it, but they still have the freedom to watch anything else. I am sure you understand the difference. I, for one, use my freedom to educate myself and voice my opinion - a privilege that most Chinese citizens do not enjoy.
- The fact that Singapore is Chinese does not contradict the fact that it inherited british institutions, language, cultural manners, and was partly developed by the brits.
- Yes, the CCP had no control over the red guards, the Japanese had no control over their renegade soldiers in Nanjig, and the American public had no control over the pilots who dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
- And if you want to talk about Native Americans, I am sure you can also tell us a bit about the Han Chinese's treatment of the various minorities in its newly acquired realms. After all... (here comes one of your favorite sentences) China is still the last standing empire on earth.
Bottom line - big government is bad. Across the board. Militarism is bad. Across the board.
Still, I can clearly see that America's system provided more prosperity nd more freedom to its citizens - and to the citizens of other countries
Right. But you put emphasis on cost, and America's hollow "prosperity" has directly or indirectly caused the deaths of millions and profound suffering and poor allocation of resources worldwide.
The Soviets are gone, and Mao is dead. In the modern age, that's ancient history. All vestiges of Mao's government have been more or less wiped out, save a few old crones that are ready to die anyways.
They choose to watch it. America's system has found a perfect way to exploit people's weaknesses to their own detriment. This is fundamentally no different from stealing an old lady's lunch money.
it inherited british institutions, language, cultural manners, and was partly developed by the brits.
So did India and South Africa, two of the most fucked up states in existence.
Yes, the CCP had no control over the red guards, the Japanese had no control over their renegade soldiers in Nanjig, and the American public had no control over the pilots who dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Really, really bad analogies but I'll let it slide. The CCP started the fire, but it quickly grew out of their control. That's very difference from having a sophisticated military apparatus directing soldiers to slaughter civilians. The orders came from the top and went through several intermediaries.
The Red Guards would better be compared to individual Americans who regularly started race riots, murdering non-whites and destroying their property.
I am sure you can also tell us a bit about the Han Chinese's treatment of the various minorities in its newly acquired realms.
China's treatment of "minorities" has been the best in human history. Period.
China is still the last standing empire on earth.
We already established that this is due to the fact that 66% of "Western" polities have rapidly progressed into "genocidal colonies", akin to Hitler's Generalplan Ost brought to life. That much does not reflect poorly on the Chinese civilization, given that they have outnumbered many less technologically, militarily and economically powerful groups and yet even the Cantonese today retain many aspects of their original culture.
Captcha - I do not agree with you that America's prosperity is a result of its overseas exploits. America was a remarkable country long before it chose to become the world's sherif. In general, I believe in non-intervention, but you must admit that WWII posed America with a serious moral dilemma. Less so with WWI, which I think America should have stayed out of.
In any case, looking at American history, the prosperity was definitely due to individual freedom and all the values that are associated with it. The decline of America, both geopolitically and financially, was also driven by its refusal to stick to the values on which it was founded: once government became too big, money was no longer tied to anything, and public spending started going through the roof, things start getting more ugly and violent.
As for Europe being built on genocide etc. We can argue about the details, but in general, almost every modern country is built on the ashes of an ancient one. Still, moral relativism is a slippery slope, and atrocities committed by one country do not justify those committed by another country. I am sure you agree.
As for the minorities that lived on this land before the various Han empires expanded west and south... I wouldn't now how they were treated, since there's hardly any trace of them. In any case, this is any issue I need to explore in more detail.
Bottom line: ideologically, do you believe that totalitarian government is better than democracy?
As for the minorities that lived on this land before the various Han empires expanded west and south... I wouldn't now how they were treated, since there's hardly any trace of them. In any case, this is any issue I need to explore in more detail.
They're called the "Cantonese", "Shanghainese" and "Minnanren" now. They've adopted some parts of Chinese culture but retain linguistic, cultural and genetic similarity to their non-Chinese ancestors.
As for the West, no one really lived in Xinjiang until several thousand years after Sino-Tibetans first arrived.
Bottom line: ideologically, do you believe that totalitarian government is better than democracy?
Totalitarianism makes the people suffer in exchange for the survival of the state, democracy is more livable but ultimately "weaker" in terms of raw power.
Once America stops being a menace, China will probably relax a bit out of totalitarianism.
Captcha; Why do you keep going back to America? I asked you a simple question about which political system you prefer. Again, ideologically, do you believe that totalitarian government is better than democracy?
I already answered. There are times it is better, there are times when it is not- it works for China, it would be bad for America.
I keep going back to America because it is the core of the "Western world", and I suspect you are using many of your arguments as a proxy for pro-Western thinking.
What do you mean "it works"?
I am asking you if in principle you think government should have the right to deny people of basic freedoms to such an extent?
Except for that chinese treatments of minorities part, a very good give and forth actually.
I ofcourse come from one of "two most fucked up countries in existence" namely India. And its hard to believe that a few hundred thousands of 'chinese minorities' will be living in India as refugees if China's treatment of minorities is the best in human history.
and I also think Singapore is not a good example to prove or disprove any theory. its too small. and an overgoverned city who's claustrophobic civil culture will not be acceptable to many peoples of the world.
as for India, we are not a democracy in the Jeffersonian kind of way. more like the Afghan Loya Jirga kind of way. and many of our liberal tendencies pre-date any form of government (monarchy, imperialism, one party rule, socialist dictatorship, fledgling multi-party democracy) that we have had in the last 200 years.
and from our limited experience, centralized planning has screwed us real bad. but recent elections show that people like more and not less centralized planning!
What do you mean "it works"?
I am asking you if in principle you think government should have the right to deny people of basic freedoms to such an extent?
If it's necessary for survival, yes, in theory. In a democracy instead you have 51% of the population denying 49% of the population their rights. Unless of course you're talking about corporations, then it's .01% of the population denying the other 99.99% their rights.
And its hard to believe that a few hundred thousands of 'chinese minorities' will be living in India as refugees if China's treatment of minorities is the best in human history.
The Dalai Lama was one faction among many in Tibet. Some of the schools and ethnic groups among Tibetans (and especially the Chinese) dislike Communism. I doubt the hundred thousand figure cited by American sources though.. it seems more like a smaller number left in the 60s and then multiplied. Then they padded their numbers with locals from nearby Indian states.
It is a country that puts people in jail for publishing an unlicensed web site and executes between 1,700 to 5,000
I overlooked this. Just so you know, Singapore has the highest executions per capita of any state.
But I agree with Balaji that Singapore has a claustrophobic civil culture.
Captcha: So what is singapore has the highest executions per capita? Does that justify any of what China is doing?
Again (and again and again) - moral relativism is a slippery slope.
I agree with you on a lot of issues, but I cannot understand why you use a different moral standard when it comes to China. It's not good for you and it's not good for China.
And as for your note about democracy, note that my question was " if in principle you think government should have the right to deny people of basic freedoms to such an extent?"
Democracy is definitely not an end in itself. Individual freedom is.
but I cannot understand why you use a different moral standard when it comes to China.
States do not run on morals. Especially now thanks to Europeans.
" if in principle you think government should have the right to deny people of basic freedoms to such an extent?"
I'd say only when necessary, but it's purely theoretical. In reality, corruption and stupidity get in the way.
Captcha: Why are you so defensive. I asked you a very simple question. Do you mind answering?
"Captcha: Why are you so defensive. I asked you a very simple question. Do you mind answering?"
Because he/she lacks the competence to answer it. He/She is illiterate regarding political activity and modern political theories. This is one of the "achievements" of CCP's nationalistic education.
P.S.: Hi, dror! I'm a chinese living in mainland china. Just encountered your blog several days ago. I like reading your blog. So just come up and say hi.
I asked you a very simple question. Do you mind answering?
I already answered twice, quite clearly. I said in principle, authoritarianism is superior to democracy when a polity is under extreme pressures to survive. Why are you so bitter?
He/She is illiterate regarding political activity and modern political theories.
Oh yes, modern, trendy Western politics! Aren't you a good little lapdog? I was born, raised and educated in a "democracy", just so you know
Hi, captcha, I hope you don't take personal attack for I called you an illiterate at some point.
It seems that you think that in order to survive any humane value can be sacrificed at least temporarily (so man living in a state of dog-like life). Then this made me think that you maybe agree with bin laden. That guy is exactly "fighting for survive (as a noble Muslim)." Or is it? It's just suicide!
And to your answer, I think it is exactly the opposite is more sound. In order to survive in current global system, more liberty and democracy (as a means) are necessary(among some others), to think otherwise is also tantamount to suicide! In totalitarianism/authoritarianism (I hope you know the difference) systems, all the key information come to the top (center), and the top's decision-making based upon those information are not put into public debate/scrutiny. So, as common people we don't know what those people in the state are thinking! That maybe the reason of your fear (and I guess you realized this, because you put the word democracy in a quote.).
Also, you said the US is the "core" of the west, that is just not true. We know the West is conventionally referring to Europe (or western Europe). Yes, America has a European background, but it is the "new west" (or trying to be as some american intellectuals intend it to be).
And hey!, you can not call something corruption just because you don't like something people do or engage.
As to stupidity, often,stupid actions performed out are the results of deep-down interests and power considerations. So in order to reduce stupidity (as you call them), more transparency and just procedure required.
It seems that you think that in order to survive any humane value can be sacrificed
Yes. Or would you rather have the country implode and be subjected to endless genocides like the Middle East?
Then this made me think that you maybe agree with bin laden.
Interesting note, America funded and supported bin Laden just like they did the Taliban.
Also, you said the US is the "core" of the west, that is just not true. We know the West is conventionally referring to Europe (or western Europe).
In fairy tale land or the history books maybe. America is the iron fist, the corrupt banker, and the morality police of the West now. They crack the skulls, extract the protection money, and generally run this mob. Europe benefits from this directly.
more liberty and democracy (as a means) are necessary
Then why is India doing so bad even though America is not trying to destroy it?
more transparency and just procedure required.
Transparency and human rights =/= democracy. Democracy just means mob rule by a select few (i.e popularity contests) who are privileged enough to be called "voters". In the classic democracy of Athens, almost 90% of the population was unable to vote. America with Jim Crow was also using democracy.
America is technically a republic anyways.
Hi, captcha, you seems think that the international relationships and domestic politics are identical!? which I couldn't agree.
And I'm not a dogmatic democratic (and, let you know, I don't belong to any political parties in China, and don't count as a "dissent".) Hitler also elected by democratic procedure.
"Or would you rather have the country implode and be subjected to endless genocides like the Middle East?"
Why it will be chaos once "western style" democracy adapted and applied to China? Yes, China is a developing country and has its own messy history. But it doesn't mean we can not adapt (see, this is a mutual adaption issue)it to some good things stemmed outside our country.
And "West is/was referring to western Europe" isn't a fairy tale, even if US is leading the course by now.
China needs transparency and rule of law, but not necessarily mob rule. Even though I'm fairly certain Chinese people would put democracy to good use, I'd prefer the old system of relying on merit over popularity contests. Back then it had its flaws, but it can be improved still.
Thanks, Captcha. Glad to see you arguing with somebody else for a change...
As for your last comment - how would you maintain the rule of law and avoid corruption without separation of powers and democracy?
(I am asking out of genuine interest. Happy to hear your ideas).
In the past, some people suggest to give voting rights only to people who can pay to take part in the election process or meet certain qualifications. This is an interesting idea that ensures that only people who really care and bother studying the facts get to actually vote. However, it does marginalize everyone else.
Again, separation of powers is also not democracy. Democracy just means a vote. People keep confusing their terminology, because Western propaganda asserts that rule of law, transparency and safeguards against excess are inherently part of democracy.
They are not. Some of the worst dictators and most unfair societies of the world were democracies.
In the past, some people suggest to give voting rights only to people who can pay to take part in the election process or meet certain qualifications.
Something like that in my opinion is going in the right direction. Perhaps not something highly exclusionary, but at least a very simple test that will weed out those voters who just don't care to know what the hell they are doing.
Sorry, Captcah, but you did not answer the question. You have been ranting about how bad democracy is - and I agree that it has many flaws. So, what type of system do you suggest?
And by the way, isn't the idea of minimizing the size of government to cover only a few basic things a step in the right direction, then? This way, people will have to take personal responsibility for most aspects of their lives. Those that will, will gain influence,and those that don't - will have to fall behind.
It really depends on what is being minimized.
Well... we can start with:
- abolishing the FDIC, or minimizing it to have a very limited role (in authority, and in time) in case of disaster
- abolishing the FED in its current form, or minimizing it to have a very limited, transparent role in case of disaster
- abolish banking reserve requirements and allow people to do some research before they choose where to put their money. Will make it possible for bad banks to exist at first, but will eventually let them die for their sins and promote responsible behavior
- Abolish most anti-trust laws, OR make sure they apply over unions as well (for example the US Doctor's Union which regulates the supply and cost and medical service in the US...)
Many other ideas, but that's a good start. What do you think?
The only problem I see with your relentless drive toward libertarian, free market conditions is that markets are not reliable. Markets can be manipulated and anything that can be done, will be done. So, while I feel that anarchy would be the very finest possible political system, it is completely unworkable due to the objection just noted. It is absolutely necessary to have close supervision over those who control or influence our economies. They can not be trusted any more than anyone else can. Everyone, or at least enough people to be dangerous, will always be prepared to steal, stack the deck, or find some way to cheat for an advantage. Your raving on the size of government is to the point, but, your belief in capitalism and free markets is naive in the extreme,Dror.
One should not lose sight of the fact that we live in what is laughingly called the real world.
This is not a lab to try out various bizarre thought experiments, or, at least, it should not be. This endless, stupid prattle about free markets is exactly the kind of deluded thinking which caused the current economic crisis.
In short, One should always count his fingers, both before and after, shaking hands with any businessperson. After all, it is greed that propelled him or her to his/her present position. The government may be inefficient and stupid, but, it is the only real shield we have against the depredations of the economically active.
As my great uncle Edwin once said,"You can shit in one hand and trust in the other. Then, you can check out which one fills up first."
@Skeptic: I am not an anarchist and not a libertarian. The constitution of the United States is a wonderful document; if the government abides by it - i'll be happy.
"markets can be manipulated" - And politicians can't be manipulated, is that it?
There is no "market". There are different actors who keep each other in check. Once you give one actor excessive powers, everything goes out of whack.
You talk about the real world, but so far all I hear from you is lofty feel-good rhetoric and no specific policies.