China has its own horrors to atone for

[TaiShang]

Sure, when you vote do you also check EXACTLY what each party will do if elected? Any way for you to make sure they do it? Why is it not a problem for Obama but it is a problem for Xi? Just because Xi rose on the bases of his merit rather than 180 million people decided black is the new white.

Why those changes for China? It's either what the people "wanted," same as what American people wanted( how many even understand economic policy to want something), or it's what CCP did. So it's either CCP or the People, the alternative can only be Santa Clause, because someone has to do something and it has to be for some reason.



I'm not accusing you in particular of anything, just that mentioning the CCP as China is in fact a mistake. Mentioning the CCP that way, implies it has some set agenda, and not just the usual staying in power which is true of anyone anywhere, set policy, set anything.

This may work better like when the Soviets and the US was at odds, but doesn't really apply to today's world, as the CCP is what the country demands. According to a paper I seen, CCP is the most diverse and the most flexible party since its creation, it has done more u turns than anyone else.

Essentially we did a Soviet 1991 without changing the name of the party, every decade or so.



I am not saying democracy is good or bad, for China or otherwise, not at this moment anyways. My point is that it could happen, and totalitarian also resulted in Africa, South America, Eastern Europe and parts of Asia, including at one point us.

Saying one would be better than the other is not applicable or helpful, as we cannot know how it will happen, what we do know is what did happen.

Is China's accomplishment enough up to this point? That's for you and me to decide, what we can't decide is if the other way would have been better, that's way too big an assumption.

My bringing up problems of democracy simply proves as such. It could happen, it may not, but it could and it has, in other parts of the world including one country eerily similar to ours.

All empires fall, for good reason.




Who decides this in America? Voters?



US is far closer to the medium than China, China is a hole compared to the US, anyone that disagrees is a sap. My point isn't China US, it's China with regards to countries that started in front of us, which incidentally is almost everyone(though I could argue that's not close to true, but in terms of GDP per capita it certainly is.)

China is a big Child, but a child none the less, China is a 7'10 child, that can pummel any adult, barring the extremely skilled and toned 7'5 adult that is the US.

China is fragile in relations to the US, ONLY to the US. US is a monster, at this point in time, you can't hold us to your standard.

Before I can answer, who is this self. It would make sense in an dynasty were one would succeed the next based on the arbitrary criteria of race or birth.

Chinese CCP is China, it is a party made up of anyone that wants to join, regardless of birth, age, color, or race or gender.

Does all 1.3 billion have to make that decision for it to be a people's choice? What if the people's choice is to leave it to the other people that chose this career.

In the US the delegates chooses the candidate, people don't, you choose the party, not Romney or Obama, but Republican or Democrat. All we did is combine the two party's delegates, and all the people voted the same way. Seeing as there are a certain number of registered party member and certain people only vote one way, it's just a few month of TV attacks and debates that decides the presidency.

We split on the fundamental difference between China and America, the majority or the minority. America needs to focus on the minority to win, as the majority are the ones that already decided. China focuses on majority.

China isn't as developed as America, if we focus on the minority, we are India, proof is that there is an India. America can focus on the minority, because the majority is well off enough.

"Outstanding !!!!!!! (as always) " ... except, perhaps, that you really do not have to justify China's model by US standards, my friend. That's, as well as the vice versa, is demeaning.

Just as we do not care about their system does not mean we do not have certain opinion on their system. We just know how to separate the two and do not judge their regime based on our own standards.

 

[Genesis]

"Outstanding !!!!!!! (as always) " ... except, perhaps, that you really do not have to justify China's model based on US standards, my friend. That's, as well as the vice versa, is demeaning.

Just as we do not care about their system does not mean we do not have certain opinion on their system. We just know how to separate the two and do not judge their regime based on our own standards.

The difference in system isn't what's driving the Authoritarian/democratic debate, it's the fact we are far behind in living standards, technological advancement, and social progress.

I do agree, the US need to separate their feelings and facts. They are too willing to see the bad and disregard the good.

If they had any influence on how China is ran, then they would be effectively be gambling on discarding the most effective system for a developing country in the last 40 years, for something that may or may not work, on 1.3 billion people. A big gamble, if there ever was one.

This is a replay of Qing dynasty, due to their power, they would disregard anyone of a different ideology, but as one emperor gave way to another, and one reform after another in the West, by the first opium war, it was clear what was once thought of as barbaric should have been paid far closer attention. Only this time in reverse.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Sure, when you vote do you also check EXACTLY what each party will do if elected? Any way for you to make sure they do it? Why is it not a problem for Obama but it is a problem for Xi? Just because Xi rose on the bases of his merit rather than 180 million people decided black is the new white.

Personally, yes. That's why I'm a registered independent, even though I have conservative leanings. I vote on a candidate-by-candidate basis, based on how that candidate's platform and actual votes align with my own values. If I'm honest, most Americans probably don't have such a high standard. But at least they have a choice, if they want to exercise that choice.

Why those changes for China? It's either what the people "wanted," same as what American people wanted( how many even understand economic policy to want something), or it's what CCP did. So it's either CCP or the People, the alternative can only be Santa Clause, because someone has to do something and it has to be for some reason.

This is delving into a topic that would require much more research on my part, but it comes down to moderating mechanisms. If the CCP decided to implement a Great Leap Forward 2.0 or Cultural Revolution 2.0, with all of the horrors and death entailed, there would be no one to stop such a move. The CCP wields all power, and there are no checks on that power (other than insurrection). Democracy isn't perfect, but it moderates such extremes quite nicely. That's why giving the decision to the people is far preferable than a 7 member Standing Committee.

This may work better like when the Soviets and the US was at odds, but doesn't really apply to today's world, as the CCP is what the country demands. According to a paper I seen, CCP is the most diverse and the most flexible party since its creation, it has done more u turns than anyone else.

Essentially we did a Soviet 1991 without changing the name of the party, every decade or so.

When the CCP leadership is enlightened, nothing works better than enlightened despotism. When CCP leadership is psychotic (e.g. Mao), nothing causes more devastation. That's what concerns me about the single-party CCP system. The fact that the CCP has had to engage in such a long-lasting war against corruption indicates to me that the CCP is not the saintly organization that many would hope to entrust their futures to.

I am not saying democracy is good or bad, for China or otherwise, not at this moment anyways. My point is that it could happen, and totalitarian also resulted in Africa, South America, Eastern Europe and parts of Asia, including at one point us.

Saying one would be better than the other is not applicable or helpful, as we cannot know how it will happen, what we do know is what did happen.

Sure, but doesn't that prove my point, that the CCP wasn't necessary for China's development? We can't know what would have happened without the CCP, but looking at other examples (Taiwan, Korea, the US), we can be fairly confident.

Is China's accomplishment enough up to this point? That's for you and me to decide, what we can't decide is if the other way would have been better, that's way too big an assumption.

Unfortunately, that's for the CCP alone to decide. The common Chinese citizen has no mechanism by which to express his displeasure with the way Chinese society is heading (other than insurrection).

Who decides this in America? Voters?

The individual decides. Since our Constitution specifically prohibits governmental interference with religion, it's up to each citizen to decide what to believe or not.

US is far closer to the medium than China, China is a hole compared to the US, anyone that disagrees is a sap. My point isn't China US, it's China with regards to countries that started in front of us, which incidentally is almost everyone(though I could argue that's not close to true, but in terms of GDP per capita it certainly is.)

I don't recall making such disparaging remarks towards China, but if that's the way my posts come across, I'll desist.

China is a big Child, but a child none the less, China is a 7'10 child, that can pummel any adult, barring the extremely skilled and toned 7'5 adult that is the US.

China is fragile in relations to the US, ONLY to the US. US is a monster, at this point in time, you can't hold us to your standard.

When you're more powerful than 99% of countries in the world, how can one claim to still be a child (or victim, or vulnerable, etc.)? This is the dichotomy of Chinese thought that I can't get my head around. It's almost as if China will not allow itself to be confident in its own accomplishments, simply for the sake of retaining the victim card. Unfortunately, the victim card is only useful in the context of how third parties perceive China, and it's increasingly difficult to view China as a victim these days.

Before I can answer, who is this self. It would make sense in an dynasty were one would succeed the next based on the arbitrary criteria of race or birth.

I would agree with you if not for the significant presence of princelings in the CCP.

I'm not accusing you in particular of anything, just that mentioning the CCP as China is in fact a mistake.

Chinese CCP is China, it is a party made up of anyone that wants to join, regardless of birth, age, color, or race or gender.

Above two quotes: huh?

Does all 1.3 billion have to make that decision for it to be a people's choice? What if the people's choice is to leave it to the other people that chose this career.

It's true that America is not a direct democracy, it's a representative democracy. The founding fathers of the US specifically wanted to avoid rule by the mob, or majoritarianism, and our system of political representation, federalization, and checks and balances were all implemented to avoid this problem. Therefore, I would agree that it's not necessary for all 1.3 billion Chinese to vote to declare China a democracy, but surely there's a Chinese version of democracy that would work for China (e.g. the HK Legislative Council model)?

China isn't as developed as America, if we focus on the minority, we are India, proof is that there is an India. America can focus on the minority, because the majority is well off enough.

I agree that not everyone can be happy in a democracy, but certainly more can be accommodated than under a totalitarian system, which tends to favor the elite. Are you not troubled that despite having a far lower GDP/capita, China's Gini coefficient is already comparable to the US? At least in the US system, we can claim that the concentration of wealth is due to meritocratic factors (even if it's not always true), but it's much harder in China, where the state/party connections and business are often inseparable.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

No contradiction here: the Chinese people prospered despite the CCP, not because of it. Wherever the CCP loosened restrictions, the Chinese people found a way to do business. But the Chinese people have no say in what sectors are deregulated, that still remains up to the CCP elites.


I think this is a misunderstanding--I'm not faulting China for anything, I am offering a different perspective (from the idea that CCP totalitarianism was necessary for China to develop, which is clearly untrue). We may be making the same error here. I may be mistaken that democracy is unilaterally good, but you are mistaken that democracy is unilaterally bad. Your contention that democracy would necessarily result in dilapidated infrastructure or lack of development is unproven.

My thesis is that China's reforms and experimentation are driving towards the inescapable system of democracy, even if it's not necessarily an American form of democracy. Only time will tell if I'm correct, but if I am, that would mean, by definition, the end of single-party CCP rule, which in turn would indicate that the CCP model no longer works.



Let's be clear: who decides what is a legitimate religion and what is a cult? You see what I am getting at.



You have a good point there, but now we're talking extremes. Chinese citizens are not allowed guns, but murder still occurs in China. On the other side, gun rights are not unrestricted in the US, and vary state by state. I live in a state where getting a gun permit is extremely difficult, and getting a concealed carry permit is not possible for normal citizens. But murders happen in my state as well. There is a happy medium here, but I think the US is far closer to that medium than China is, and that's where I am tryi
The US has its own unique problems ( divides, political polarization, wealth inequality, etc.) This is what I was referring to earlier: we often come back to China's desire for understanding in wielding an iron fist against its own problems in order to secure its fragile society, but China doesn't act on the international stage like a fragile nation. Quite the contrary.



Not sure I understand the analogy, but can I turn this around? Why should the Chinese people be content to surrender their decision-making authority to a self-appointed elite?

No contradiction here: the Chinese people prospered despite the CCP, not because of it. Wherever the CCP loosened restrictions, the Chinese people found a way to do business. But the Chinese people have no say in what sectors are deregulated, that still remains up to the CCP elites.



Agreed. I think there is a tendency on PDF to read political agendas into statements, but that's not my intent. China prospered despite the CCP in the same way that the US prospered despite the Democratic Party and Republican Party. Nevertheless, voting ensures that the parties remain responsive to the general population, and minimizes the level of obstruction by government. China does not yet have such a mechanism.



Yes, I'm saying that the CCP has focused on social development, but is reaching the limits of this strategy. Property rights, for example, are an impediment to social development, even though they are defined first as a political question. In short, the system is not fit for purpose anymore.



I think this is a misunderstanding--I'm not faulting China for anything, I am offering a different perspective (from the idea that CCP totalitarianism was necessary for China to develop, which is clearly untrue). We may be making the same error here. I may be mistaken that democracy is unilaterally good, but you are mistaken that democracy is unilaterally bad. Your contention that democracy would necessarily result in dilapidated infrastructure or lack of development is unproven.

My thesis is that China's reforms and experimentation are driving towards the inescapable system of democracy, even if it's not necessarily an American form of democracy. Only time will tell if I'm correct, but if I am, that would mean, by definition, the end of single-party CCP rule, which in turn would indicate that the CCP model no longer works.



Let's be clear: who decides what is a legitimate religion and what is a cult? You see what I am getting at.



You have a good point there, but now we're talking extremes. Chinese citizens are not allowed guns, but murder still occurs in China. On the other side, gun rights are not unrestricted in the US, and vary state by state. I live in a state where getting a gun permit is extremely difficult, and getting a concealed carry permit is not possible for normal citizens. But murders happen in my state as

The US has its own unique problems (racial divides, political polarization, wealth inequality, etc.) This is what I was referring to earlier: we often come back to China's desire for understanding in wielding an iron fist against its own problems in order to secure its fragile society, but China doesn't act on the international stage like a fragile nation. Quite the contrary.

it is very hard to type on a smart phone.

I came back to China after 5 years since my last visit, 3 weeks ago. i did not expect China to be so good. I do not live in Beijing, Shanghai, etc. I live in an inland megacity near my hometown. what I realized was this: making 2000 dollars per month is fucking miserable compared to making 4000 RMB in China (approximately same level of income ). you have computers and smart phone in the US? you still have them here. but with 2000 dollars in the US, after rent, insurance, car maintenance and registration, etc. you basically have enough to pay the bills and not much else. going anywhere, doing anything, is inconvenience because the public transportation is bad. it was unsafe to go outside at night. i had to save on air conditioning, rarely eat at restaurant, etc . here, I can go to anywhere in the city within an hour (a city as big as Los Angeles in both size and population ), find a job within a 30minutes commute, never need a car, have access to entertainment and shopping right at my doorstep, and a clean 2b apartment rented, for 4000 rmb monthly salary. I don't need to save for my kid's college, because their tuition is only 10,000 rmb per year including rent. in undergraduate in the US even in state students were paying around 28000 for room and tuition. and that's just a theoretical 4000 rmb, I expect way more.

this is not something that just naturally arises. it was all planned to make tax funded public goods accessible to as many ppl as possible. meanwhile in the US alot of taxpayer money is used to fund private consumption, not public goods, so despite higher taxes, the average person who doesn't use those services (the young and educated ) sees little benefit. alot of the high consumption in the US is forced consumption (auto, auto insurance, property taxes, medicine, etc )

 

[TaiShang]

it is very hard to type on a smart phone.

I came back to China after 5 years since my last visit, 3 weeks ago. i did not expect China to be so good. I do not live in Beijing, Shanghai, etc. I live in an inland megacity near my hometown. what I realized was this: making 2000 dollars per month is fucking miserable compared to making 4000 RMB in China (approximately same level of income ). you have computers and smart phone in the US? you still have them here. but with 2000 dollars in the US, after rent, insurance, car maintenance and registration, etc. you basically have enough to pay the bills and not much else. going anywhere, doing anything, is inconvenience because the public transportation is bad. it was unsafe to go outside at night. i had to save on air conditioning, rarely eat at restaurant, etc . here, I can go to anywhere in the city within an hour (a city as big as Los Angeles in both size and population ), find a job within a 30minutes commute, never need a car, have access to entertainment and shopping right at my doorstep, and a clean 2b apartment rented, for 4000 rmb monthly salary. I don't need to save for my kid's college, because their tuition is only 10,000 rmb per year including rent. in undergraduate in the US even in state students were paying around 28000 for room and tuition. and that's just a theoretical 4000 rmb, I expect way more.

this is not something that just naturally arises. it was all planned to make tax funded public goods accessible to as many ppl as possible. meanwhile in the US alot of taxpayer money is used to fund private consumption, not public goods, so despite higher taxes, the average person who doesn't use those services (the young and educated ) sees little benefit. alot of the high consumption in the US is forced consumption (auto, auto insurance, property taxes, medicine, etc )

Living in China (or, I should say, in Greater China) is liberationist especially for those Chinese that lived some years in the US.

I remember, I had some serious tooth problem when in the US, but had to suffer for about a year because the cost was God-damn high. Well, it was not only because I was a student; in fact, I was also working and filling for tax. And some of my US friends who also had tooth problems abstained from having a proper treatment and some even lacked front teeth.

That's terrible and I can't tell how glad I was when I am back home and received a complete treatment at a minor cost.

The difference in system isn't what's driving the Authoritarian/democratic debate, it's the fact we are far behind in living standards, technological advancement, and social progress.

That's true. First step to excellence is to admit one's shortcomings. But, we will not allow to be dictated by foreigners who judge our own system by their own standards. it is not that one is better than the other; but those people are having difficulty in accepting this plain idea.

If they had any influence on how China is ran, then they would be effectively be gambling on discarding the most effective system for a developing country in the last 40 years, for something that may or may not work, on 1.3 billion people. A big gamble, if there ever was one.

That's the right point. They have much smaller influence than it seems. Part of the reason is that they repeat the same thing for so many times that we sort of become immunized. Besides, we have our own success stories to tell.

This is a replay of Qing dynasty, due to their power, they would disregard anyone of a different ideology, but as one emperor gave way to another, and one reform after another in the West, by the first opium war, it was clear what was once thought of as barbaric should have been paid far closer attention. Only this time in reverse.

I am not ignoring historical mentoring, even it is experienced by others. I guess the past mistake was more of ignoring one's weaknesses than others' strengths.

@Chinese-Dragon

 

[Genesis]

Personally, yes. That's why I'm a registered independent, even though I have conservative leanings. I vote on a candidate-by-candidate basis, based on how that candidate's platform and actual votes align with my own values. If I'm honest, most Americans probably don't have such a high standard. But at least they have a choice, if they want to exercise that choice.

This is delving into a topic that would require much more research on my part, but it comes down to moderating mechanisms. If the CCP decided to implement a Great Leap Forward 2.0 or Cultural Revolution 2.0, with all of the horrors and death entailed, there would be no one to stop such a move. The CCP wields all power, and there are no checks on that power (other than insurrection). Democracy isn't perfect, but it moderates such extremes quite nicely. That's why giving the decision to the people is far preferable than a 7 member Standing Committee.

When the CCP leadership is enlightened, nothing works better than enlightened despotism. When CCP leadership is psychotic (e.g. Mao), nothing causes more devastation. That's what concerns me about the single-party CCP system. The fact that the CCP has had to engage in such a long-lasting war against corruption indicates to me that the CCP is not the saintly organization that many would hope to entrust their futures to.

An implied inevitability or the illusion of choice.

The great leap forward and cultural revolution didn't happen in a vacuum. The great leap forward has been done on farming and in much smaller scale before 1949 and even after. The cultural revolution is a continuation of communist purges, and with no jobs, it gives young people something to do.

As crazy as it sounds, those are what the people "wanted." They just didn't know what they were getting.

Like any financial policy by 2008, the American one failed, again, while the Chinese policy maybe failing now. There are effectively no checks on either, as bad decisions are still made.

It's just that in 1961 and 1968 those were the trends in China, while the financial policy of 2000s in America were the trends. While the 61 and 68 mistakes were far more costly.

If we are honest, the Iraqi war and Afghanistan war unnecessarily cost the Americans thousands of lives, as did the Vietnam war and Korean war, which of those decided the fate of the US and benefited the ordinary American.

There are a couple of things stopping it now.

1) If you can accept that both the great leap forward and cultural revolution actually had support when they started, they did, then you can accept even then the government had some accountability towards the people.

2) Basing on that, the Chinese today are far more educated and worldly to know more accurately, what may or may not help. This is seen on the forums, and in conversations between people that a lot of the reforms are in fact the ones that are sought after by the people. Like financial reforms, death penalty reforms, anti corruption, military, assuming we can also agree these didn't happen randomly or by chance.

3) If we can accept that and that Chinese people are interested in monetary gains and spiritual gains, while having that knowledge that they possess, movements like the great leap forward will have as much possibility of happening as they have in the US.


Having no official check on power isn't the same as having no check on power, that's the world of China. China enacts a smoking ban that expects no one to follow, China does actually have different parties, but no one wants to join.

There are no perfect system, you have to see the great leap forward and cultural revolution for what they actually are. Destructive, yet not out of the ordinary.

Sure, but doesn't that prove my point, that the CCP wasn't necessary for China's development? We can't know what would have happened without the CCP, but looking at other examples (Taiwan, Korea, the US), we can be fairly confident.

So the Philippines, Indonesia, Brazil, Russia, India, what are those? Not on earth? You can be fairly confident those worked there, there are places that didn't. Are you unwilling to accept that?

Unfortunately, that's for the CCP alone to decide. The common Chinese citizen has no mechanism by which to express his displeasure with the way Chinese society is heading (other than insurrection).

What do Americans do? Protest? Chinese protests, not reported but they do. Vote out the government? China changes every 10 years regardless. Influence policy? Again, if Chinese can't, why those changes? Why then, why now?

The individual decides. Since our Constitution specifically prohibits governmental interference with religion, it's up to each citizen to decide what to believe or not.

Now that I checked, yes Americans do have that freedom, even that people's temple cult. I am mistaken.

I also disagree with you here however, when you know something is bad, White supremacy, black supremacy, like KKK, Black panther, Scientology which is a scam, and those crazy "christian" cults that allows multiple wives and kids kept in isolation.

Those are terrible cults, why allow it? You would help the blind with a seeing eye dog, but not the stupid with a dangerous cult? Allowing these evil men to exist and work effectively is allowing the blind guy into traffic and see what happens.

A bit exaggerated yes, but tell me you think the treatment, especially of the children born is ok.

I don't recall making such disparaging remarks towards China, but if that's the way my posts come across, I'll desist.

That was me, all me, I know what China really is at this point in time and I know what America is like, having lived there. There's no point in me lying, it is what it is. China's welfare system on people with disability is particularly frustrating for me, as I have relatives who aren't receiving the same help they would have received had they been born in America. I can help them, but what of the millions that aren't my relatives.

When you're more powerful than 99% of countries in the world, how can one claim to still be a child (or victim, or vulnerable, etc.)? This is the dichotomy of Chinese thought that I can't get my head around. It's almost as if China will not allow itself to be confident in its own accomplishments, simply for the sake of retaining the victim card. Unfortunately, the victim card is only useful in the context of how third parties perceive China, and it's increasingly difficult to view China as a victim these days.

More powerful, because our ancestors left us a huge country, like as a child our parents gave us great DNA. We are still in early childhood, in terms of social progress, wealth, and technological advances.

China isn't a victim, if anything it's the real deal, not as powerful, as we will be, though not nearly as helpless as some thinks.

Not so much not confident, but not satisfied.

I would agree with you if not for the significant presence of princelings in the CCP.

~92% of all communist party central committee are first generation. It says it in there, you don't have to agree with it, but all the data in there are easily verifiable.

Above two quotes: huh?

CCP is the government of China not China itself, sorry.

It's true that America is not a direct democracy, it's a representative democracy. The founding fathers of the US specifically wanted to avoid rule by the mob, or majoritarianism, and our system of political representation, federalization, and checks and balances were all implemented to avoid this problem. Therefore, I would agree that it's not necessary for all 1.3 billion Chinese to vote to declare China a democracy, but surely there's a Chinese version of democracy that would work for China (e.g. the HK Legislative Council model)?



I agree that not everyone can be happy in a democracy, but certainly more can be accommodated than under a totalitarian system, which tends to favor the elite. Are you not troubled that despite having a far lower GDP/capita, China's Gini coefficient is already comparable to the US?

I just want China to get to the level where all Chinese have a chance to prosper and live the way they want to live, like our American counterparts do, I really don't care what system.

The argument here is I think the risk far outweighs the few sure benefits that would come out of switching right now. Too many things are uncertain to make this decision. In my profession, we do a risk analysis, and from what I can see the obvious benefits from our current system, far outweighs the few sure benefits plus the gigantic amount of risk.

At least in the US system, we can claim that the concentration of wealth is due to meritocratic factors (even if it's not always true), but it's much harder in China, where the state/party connections and business are often inseparable.

Assuming this is true, probably is, both party and business are first generation, China doesn't have enough capable second generations to take over, what would be the difference. It's still meritocracy, would you prefer, if the government isn't involved? The difference is only the title, in effect it's about the same percentage of people more or less to America that can rise from the rest, taking into account each's total wealth available.

Besides that, is it not advantages for businesses, especially the kind that would deal with the government on a regular bases to have contacts in the government? If anything, due to the young age of China, it's far more likely to make contacts in the Chinese government than America, as society hasn't set in as much as America has.

 

[Carlosa]

Glad to see that we finally got some quality debate, even that is not quite on the topic.

Keep it up guys, this is healthy.

 

[Genesis]

Glad to see that we finally got some quality debate, even that is not quite on the topic.

Keep it up guys, this is healthy.

The topic makes no sense. There's only two scenarios where this would apply, first what Japan does is directly correlated to what China does, meaning China takes the lead, Japan, follows. Short of that, what does it matter what China did.

Second, if the victim does anything bad, or similar than no apology necessary, regarding the previous offense. If that were true, Germany can stop now, because Israel tried to poison all Germans, and if even half of what Israel is doing in the middle east is true then, Germany really should stop.

I hate this petty I know you are but what am I. Japan's a big boy, it should do what it thinks is right, and not be affected by any outside influence. If it feels that apologizing for WW2 is wrong, than say that, if it's just a game of see who can hold their breath the longest, well, the author of the article needs to go back to kindergarten, because he's missed some key lessons there.

Lastly, should China publicly admit to wrong doing and study the mistakes made and atone for what was done? Yes, but it's still the old guards, so we probably won't see it for a while.

 

[Carlosa]

Lastly, should China publicly admit to wrong doing and study the mistakes made and atone for what was done? Yes, but it's still the old guards, so we probably won't see it for a while.

Yes, I agree. There is plenty to review about the Mao era and sooner or later China will have to do that and come to terms with it, but it will have to wait until the old guard is gone.

Vietnam also is in the same situation in many ways, there is much change that is needed and the younger party members know that, but not much will change until the old guard is gone.

 

[JaiMin]

An implied inevitability or the illusion of choice.

The great leap forward and cultural revolution didn't happen in a vacuum. The great leap forward has been done on farming and in much smaller scale before 1949 and even after. The cultural revolution is a continuation of communist purges, and with no jobs, it gives young people something to do.

As crazy as it sounds, those are what the people "wanted." They just didn't know what they were getting.

Like any financial policy by 2008, the American one failed, again, while the Chinese policy maybe failing now. There are effectively no checks on either, as bad decisions are still made.

It's just that in 1961 and 1968 those were the trends in China, while the financial policy of 2000s in America were the trends. While the 61 and 68 mistakes were far more costly.

If we are honest, the Iraqi war and Afghanistan war unnecessarily cost the Americans thousands of lives, as did the Vietnam war and Korean war, which of those decided the fate of the US and benefited the ordinary American.

There are a couple of things stopping it now.

1) If you can accept that both the great leap forward and cultural revolution actually had support when they started, they did, then you can accept even then the government had some accountability towards the people.

2) Basing on that, the Chinese today are far more educated and worldly to know more accurately, what may or may not help. This is seen on the forums, and in conversations between people that a lot of the reforms are in fact the ones that are sought after by the people. Like financial reforms, death penalty reforms, anti corruption, military, assuming we can also agree these didn't happen randomly or by chance.

3) If we can accept that and that Chinese people are interested in monetary gains and spiritual gains, while having that knowledge that they possess, movements like the great leap forward will have as much possibility of happening as they have in the US.


Having no official check on power isn't the same as having no check on power, that's the world of China. China enacts a smoking ban that expects no one to follow, China does actually have different parties, but no one wants to join.

There are no perfect system, you have to see the great leap forward and cultural revolution for what they actually are. Destructive, yet not out of the ordinary.





So the Philippines, Indonesia, Brazil, Russia, India, what are those? Not on earth? You can be fairly confident those worked there, there are places that didn't. Are you unwilling to accept that?



What do Americans do? Protest? Chinese protests, not reported but they do. Vote out the government? China changes every 10 years regardless. Influence policy? Again, if Chinese can't, why those changes? Why then, why now?




Now that I checked, yes Americans do have that freedom, even that people's temple cult. I am mistaken.

I also disagree with you here however, when you know something is bad, White supremacy, black supremacy, like KKK, Black panther, Scientology which is a scam, and those crazy "christian" cults that allows multiple wives and kids kept in isolation.

Those are terrible cults, why allow it? You would help the blind with a seeing eye dog, but not the stupid with a dangerous cult? Allowing these evil men to exist and work effectively is allowing the blind guy into traffic and see what happens.

A bit exaggerated yes, but tell me you think the treatment, especially of the children born is ok.



That was me, all me, I know what China really is at this point in time and I know what America is like, having lived there. There's no point in me lying, it is what it is. China's welfare system on people with disability is particularly frustrating for me, as I have relatives who aren't receiving the same help they would have received had they been born in America. I can help them, but what of the millions that aren't my relatives.



More powerful, because our ancestors left us a huge country, like as a child our parents gave us great DNA. We are still in early childhood, in terms of social progress, wealth, and technological advances.

China isn't a victim, if anything it's the real deal, not as powerful, as we will be, though not nearly as helpless as some thinks.

Not so much not confident, but not satisfied.




~92% of all communist party central committee are first generation. It says it in there, you don't have to agree with it, but all the data in there are easily verifiable.

CCP is the government of China not China itself, sorry.



I just want China to get to the level where all Chinese have a chance to prosper and live the way they want to live, like our American counterparts do, I really don't care what system.

The argument here is I think the risk far outweighs the few sure benefits that would come out of switching right now. Too many things are uncertain to make this decision. In my profession, we do a risk analysis, and from what I can see the obvious benefits from our current system, far outweighs the few sure benefits plus the gigantic amount of risk.



Assuming this is true, probably is, both party and business are first generation, China doesn't have enough capable second generations to take over, what would be the difference. It's still meritocracy, would you prefer, if the government isn't involved? The difference is only the title, in effect it's about the same percentage of people more or less to America that can rise from the rest, taking into account each's total wealth available.

Besides that, is it not advantages for businesses, especially the kind that would deal with the government on a regular bases to have contacts in the government? If anything, due to the young age of China, it's far more likely to make contacts in the Chinese government than America, as society hasn't set in as much as America has.

I think what he meant was that in China the power of party is above the power of central government, so Congress or Central Commitee cannot punish high ranking official for their wrong doing or corruption. And independant candidate cannot afford to compete the position in government without joining the Party. Also, many top down position officer are based on relationship rather than competent candidate. However, supervision control in China are getting better as Xi launch his campaign ofc. Also, Philippine, India,.... as you mention, they are only half-nake democracy, their supervision control are weak or fragile, so corruption is a big issue there. So party instead compete each other, they compete for their own interest and benefit, Media in those contries still not liberal and independant from government, so much of the issue still covered behind the wall. And as you said, people care less about liberal or free speech if their life is improving continuously, it is in certain point then those issue will be causing break out like Korea and Taiwan in 1990's from authorian govt to more democracy govt. But ofc, result will not always be the same in different countries, China govt despite the current problems, still stable and i don't think it will change in coming or next 2 decade. But it also depend on party ability to adopt to the situation, so the result will always uncertain

 

[XiaoYaoZi]

Sorry for replying so late, I have many other works to do!

I think there's truth to what you're saying in the sense that what has been appropriate for other countries (e.g. democracy) may not be appropriate for China, but I'm struggling to understand your analogy about the development of nationalism. Today, the least nationalistic countries are the most developed, especially in the case of Europe. There can be no greater expression of the destruction of nationalism than sacrificing national power to a greater superstructure, like the European Union.

In fact of tradition Chinese's mind have seldom this concept of the nation/race, which absolutely is influenced by foreigners. We are used to distinguishing different people with the places where they are from, and no one cares about which nation/race one is. Even the translations "民族" and "种族"of the words "nation" and "race" in Modern Chinese were introduced from Japanese. However, all the foreigners are almost similar in our eyes no matter which country/nation/race they are.

In fact since sixteenth century it has been almost normal that European countries were more developed than the most other countries of the world. Before WWII there had been countless wars that had happen to the Continental Europe, that time was absolutely the time when the nationalism upsurged. However, many disputes have been solved in long past history, nowadays development of economy need closer cooperation between countries that contribute to the resolution of disputes inside Europe in some degree, meanwhile because of their superiority of economy and technology these countries can easily transfer a lot of their conflicts to the external world, which also resolve many disputes of them. So the kind of diluted nationalism of Europe should be a result of comprehensive interaction of many complicated factors of reciprocity.

That said, China has taken a somewhat schizophrenic attitude towards its stage of development. On the one hand, we see many Chinese claim that because China is still a relatively poor developing country, it should be excused for its most egregious flaws, and not held to high standards. On the other hand, China believes itself to be sufficiently developed and powerful to claim the entire SCS as its own lake, subordinate Russia into the role of a client state, and challenge the US-established world order.
Needless to say, one of these perspectives is wrong, and as the saying goes, actions speak louder than words.

As you said, China is a relatively poor developing country with many flaws, but China also is a big country with a very huge population. Because of many reasons left over by history, China still has many disputes with neighboring countries. We will avoid using the way of war to resolve these disputes, but we never abandon our core interests. We will always advocate to use peaceful means to resolve them, unless some stupid one has shot the first bullet.

This is a great example of the split mind that I referred to above. China has a several-thousand year old civilization, and is rightly proud of it. Several Chinese users here routinely claim that they are racially superior humans (higher IQ, etc.), and one need not look far to see Chinese members brag about how they will eject the US from Asia and dominate the new world order.

How can such confident ubermensch be concerned with "Western ideological infiltration"? I thought the Chinese are too smart, and their civilization is too superior to be concerned about that.

Are you satirizing? Sir!
Having a thousand year old civilization, China has huge mount of spiritual and cultural wealths inherited from predecessors, which for reference are very conducive to deal with many internal or external affairs, that is an advantage of ours. But as a modern country, China is relatively younger than your western countries. We have no as enough much and mature experience in administering a modern country as your westerners. Our living standards, the level of social service and the level of science and technology need take much time to improve to your degree. So your country still has some superiority in many fields. The convergence of the gap always need take a long time, although we have a remarkable growth rate. Common people may not be patient with our model and confident about our political system because of the existence of the long-standing gap. However, as i said before the situation will change when our economy increases to a relatively developed level.
And do you think your country hasn't done these "ideological infiltration"?

This is an interesting question that has been the subject of much study. Was the CCP necessary for China's rapid development, and was it uniquely visionary in achieving what it has? Indeed, China has broken records for the length of time it has sustained high growth, but if I may borrow from my Emerging Markets thread:

Emerging and Frontier Markets: Economic and Geopolitical Analysis



Many countries have achieved high growth, so China is not unique. If China has sustained growth for longer, is it possible that it's because it started from a low base, and had the unique advantage of size? Let's look at it from an equally plausible alternative, that of Taiwan. The KMT fled to Taiwan and ruled there, and achieved a similar increase in GDP per capita (i.e. by an order of magnitude) over nearly the same time period.

Don't get me wrong, I think the CCP has done a good job. But the idea that only the CCP could have accomplished the Chinese growth miracle is simply propaganda. If Botswana can do it, it's difficult to see how some other leadership in China would not have had a good chance of achieving similar results.

Regardless, you have condemned Hong Kong and Taiwan as dysfunctional for embracing democracy. The IMF shows Taiwan's GDP/capita (nominal) in 2014 as $22,598. Hong Kong's is $39,871. China's is $7,589. I will take Taiwan's and Hong Kong's "failure" over China's "success" ten times out of ten. Let's not be too hasty to condemn Taiwan and HK for their experiments with democracy simply because their existence is inconvenient for the CCP. As I said before, not every system is appropriate for every country, and thus while totalitarianism may be appropriate for China, it may not be for Taiwan and HK. That's not enough to call Taiwan's and HK's systems a failure.

We haven't even touched South Korea, Singapore, and Japan, which are wealthy, developed Asian countries that also happen to be democracies, but let's discuss that some other time.

Over 90% countries of the world are you called democracy countries. But over 50% of these countries have lower GDP per capita than China.
The time when Taiwan's economy flew highly is Two Chiang Era(Chiang kai shek & Chiang ching-kuo) that was quiet a authoritarian time. When it came to the democracy time, the economy of Taiwan almost stagnated. The income level almost dischanged for last 20 years. Its democracy has lead to the serious populist now, which has seriously limited the economic development of Taiwan.
For Hong Kong, when it come back to China and became a democracy in 1997, its GDP accounted for 16% of the GDP of China. Now the figure has been less 3%. I don't think in British colonial era Hong Kong is a democracy.

Now I need to diverge a bit from realpolitik into ideology. I am not Chinese and can't speak for the Chinese people, but having met, worked with, and befriended Chinese from Malaysia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Shanghai, and Tianjin, I know them to be intelligent, hard-working, and creative people. That's why it's painful for me to see so many Chinese dismiss democracy, human rights, and universal values as inappropriate for China. The Chinese I know are people just like me--people who, given the chance, will make good decisions, and choose what is best for themselves and their country. That means, at some point, democracy would be the best course of action for China. To believe otherwise is to imply that most Chinese are untermenschen who cannot be trusted to do the right thing, because they are simply inferior to the exalted leadership of the CCP.

I think your democracy just is a kind of system of methodology that consist of a lot of measures about how to govern/run a country, which means it has both the strengths and weaknesses. However, ours is another system, resembling yours it also has the advantages and disadvantages. Every one's choice of the ways to develop is rightly based on its own historical and realistic factors, the one's own need are most important roles. However i think there is no thoroughly perfect system.
The CCP's system of governance and selection is very similar with the modern enterprise system. Every official get its promotion for his/her qualification, experience, performance and achievement, however, to get the formal appointment of position he/she need to pass through the screening of Local/National People's Congress whose committees needn't be the members of CCP. Meanwhile the disciplines of CCP are far stricter than the common Chinese law and have other spacial orders, for example the member need be at age of over 18, must be a atheist, hardworking, loving matherland, loving common people etc. CCP absorbed many useful experiences of the country's governance in history that had been used very long in ancient dynasty and had been proven very effective in governing a vast country as China.

Although the CCP's economic measures of all kinds are not totally perfect, its success is never accidental. Two main reasons can account for China's economic success. One is the high productivity of labor , the other is the institutional innovation of CCP, which is an advantange of our system. The continuity of policies also is an advantage, because we need not care that when we change a president, our some effective policies will be changed.

I cannot accept this. I believe the common Chinese citizen has the qualities necessary to determine his own destiny, and I think, like the other Asian democracies, China will eventually adapt and accept some version of democracy that maximizes the genius of the Chinese people, instead of filtering it through the CCP gatekeepers.

I don't think there is a perfect political system, your called democracy also is not. Once the society changes, the political system also need to change to adapt the social changes, then new political system promote new social changes again,... The cycle will be in progress forever. So there never be a perfect style, the standard to judge whether a system is good/better or bad/worse is whether it can run the society effectively.
For Chinese, with rapid economic growth every day has seen countless changes in any fields. CCP is good at institutional innovation, any policies are polished again and again. I dont think there is a eventual change as you said, but the change will always be in progress to adapt new social changes.

In an ironic sort of way, I agree with you that Chinese will display more nationalism when China becomes a developed country, although not for the same reasons you imply. I think the nationalism displayed by the Chinese people will come in the form of attacking ideas that do not maximize the material comfort and happiness of the Chinese people--and in that sense, in the Western sense, dissent is the highest form of nationalism.

Using your style, in Chinese sense, unity is the highest form of nationalism. Competition and cooperation is the two basic elements of most interpersonal relationships. In your view, in the western sense, the interpersonal relation's performance in nationalism must be that competition is more important than cooperation. I think Chinese do the opposite quite.

Once China jumps over the economic development hurdle, we will see an increasing focus on non-economic issues. We already see quality of life and environmental issues rising to the fore, but this is just the beginning.

Of course.