Democracy in China? Depends on the outcome....

[somsak]

when you make it to lala land where rainbows are made of marshmallows and the rivers are chocolate, can you leave me a ticket? I also like to go there.

Meanwhile back on earth realities are realities, what exactly do you think scientists do all day? You know reforestation takes some hundreds of years along, while China right now has world's 20 percent population but only 7 percent water right.

Over population is not a myth or a theory it's a fact.

It's a fact until new solution is discovered. Once a solution is discovered, its not overpopulate. I will give an example.
Suppose China can produce 10 times the agriculture output of current day, is having 1.4 billion population overpopulation?

Since current day agriculture output of China is enough for 1.4 billion population, 10 times of it will give great great surplus. Can China output 10 times the agriculture? Can Rice in ton/land units increase? Yes. In fact, it has been increasing greatly during these 30 years. Read this scientist.
Yuan Longping - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How about modified rice or potato that could grow in desert using water dipping technology? Is that sound like a undo-able time travel technology?

Since when do Chinese people say the word "impossible" so easy?
The more people a nation has, the higher the ability for a nation to change world's environment to their need.

 

[Ragnar]

well, you can say that, but can you really say India would be better under dictatorship? Maybe it's one coup after another, we don't know. One thing I learned is never make assumptions after the fact, cause you don't know what could have happened, all you know is what did.

This is true.. India could have been another China or another basketcase like Zimbabwe. No way to know. Extremely diverse countries like India need more decentralisation for effective local governance - but should not push it to the point of fragmentation and furthering of petty regional interests- that is the dilemma.

 

[terranMarine]

The more people a nation has, the higher the ability for a nation to change world's environment to their need.

Like India?

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

First, thank you for this original analysis. I appreciate your well-reasoned explanation, and I learned a bit more about the Chinese perspective; this is why I return to PDF, day after day. If I could, I would give you a positive rating. That said, I have a few comments...

Now let me get this out of the way, I am in no way saying no to freedom, equality, and prosperity, but I don't think it's set in stone American democracy will make its way here. I am not for oppression of the people, I am not for unequal treated for the privileged, and I am certainly not for irresponsible governance.

But many people in their pursuit of American dream, has forgotten the good aspects of the Chinese model, and the current development state of the Chinese nation. China is one of the safest countries in the world, it is also one of the best nations in terms of consistency of public services, we bring progress far faster than anyone could predict, and we have a far faster and better system for tackling new problems like pollution, corruption, and other threats.

I posted in another thread (Emerging and Frontier Markets: Economic and Geopolitical Analysis ) a chart showing several high-growth success stories. Many countries have been able to achieve what China did, even if not on the scale of China, or the length of time China has sustained such growth. Most of these countries eventually transitioned to democracy, because as you pointed out later in your analysis, they fulfilled the other thresholds of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, and wanted more. I don't see anything in Chinese culture that would prevent it from successfully embracing democracy as well, especially given the events of 1989, and the examples of Taiwan and Hong Kong. True, it may need to be a gradual approach, but democracy is not antithetical to any of the qualities you admire in China today.

The right to better governance is a key in the appeal of democracy, but reforms in the judicial system is happening to make the process more fair and transparent, the anti-corruption charge has been everywhere and today many including my relatives and me can feel a clear difference in terms of the government. For example restaurants are now changing to deal with a non-existent dining using public funds, luxury service industries are also scaling back.

The government interference either for bribes or otherwise are now rare and few and far between, this is from personal experience in three cities and another four from relatives. But problems still persist in some areas, and will be dealt with, but not in a way that you would think. A lot of the corruption that still happens are actually created by the people. People who want to get around the law for some small things, like public displays of ads or signs, keeping cars on the road, getting faster medical services and such or cannot keep up with the good business standards.

This is to be applauded, of course. And yet, this positive movement depends entirely on an enlightened leadership. Previous leadership in China did not combat corruption to this level; successive leadership may relapse and allow corruption to flourish once again. Democracy allows people to force a change in agenda through change in government, but there is no such mechanism in a dictatorship. Who will protect the people from a tyrannical CCP should another Mao arise? The army is a branch of the party.

Only independent institutions separate from a party can ensure long-term impartiality. Democracy may not be the best system, but it is the least worst system in implementing such separation of government institutions from political interference.

But with an improved and more educated work force and corporate leadership, more and more of these things won't be necessary, a lot of these are stemmed from an inability to actually implement standards, for example, one of my relatives used bribes for his sign outside his business because he has no idea how to make it within a price that he can afford. This will take time, for the service industry to mature even further.

As to the other small things, with better health care, more regulations on drugs and medical service, greater earning potential of the people to always use the safest equipment, and much more, these smaller bribes can be completely eliminated not by democracy, but simply a better living standard, and earning ability. No one would take the risk of bribes or just give his own money to someone else if he can be sure of the quality of service and product.

You are correct that improving living standards will take care of many of these problems by itself. However, corruption does not recognize developed or non-developed status. Corruption is rife in Italy, with contractors bribing government bureaucrats, taxpayers bribing tax collectors, and so forth. It's true that democracy did not prevent this corruption in Italy, but that is because Italy has weak institutions, and a permissive culture for this sort of behavior. Culture matters. If Chinese society tolerates the small bribes (such as your relative bribing in order to put up a sign), it will also tolerate large bribes. China needs strong institutions and a culture that does not condone such behavior, but it seems unlikely to achieve that until the people have the power to punish such behavior. Right now, their only means of doing so is through rioting, which is far from the optimal solution.

All the news of China censoring that and this is not a reflection on the situation on the ground as those censored are very specific and hardly disrupt the daily use of such systems.

This reminds me of the old saying, "it's a recession when your friend is unemployed, it's a depression when you are unemployed." It's easy for you to dismiss the censorship as long as it doesn't affect you, but you will likely regret such dismissals if you are ever subject to abuses by the state followed by a cover-up. It's the same in the US, but at least we have the possibility of an independent media doing an investigation, even if in practice the majority of the media is in the pocket of the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, it's important to allow the opportunity for watchdogs to inform the people and shame abusers.

I have talked a lot about the ins and outs of both of our systems, the main point I want to convey is that most of the problems stems from a couple of sources, the realities on the ground in terms of land, resources, and population, old habits that needs to be reformed, a need for further reforms that needs to happen and can't see opposition, progress, and just the simple fact we are a developing nation and much needs to change before we can be consider developed.

I hope I have convinced you in my time here that as much as I criticize China, I appreciate that these changes will take time, and I am optimistic in the long term that China will converge with us socially, just as it has converged economically. I don't expect China to look like America, but I also see no reason why China cannot or should not enjoy the same freedoms we do.

Now onto the main topic, democracy in China. China now and when considered semi-developed in 10 years will be a beacon for another ideology, reasonable authoritarian for the lack of a better term. Meritocracy.

It sounds enticing, to be sure. I can't remember if it were you or another user who introduced me to the works of Dambisa Moyo, an economist who is a great admirer of the Chinese system of state capitalism, but this is her main point as well. I can only say in response that when it works, nothing works better than enlightened despotism. Leadership makes a decision, and then executes the decision. The problem is when the despots are not so enlightened--then they make decisions, and execute dissenters, even if the dissenters happen to be right.

China has admirably embraced meritocracy in many areas. But the very fact that individuals like Zhou Yongkang could rise up so far and engage in so much corruption calls into question the purity of China's claims of meritocracy. As I repeat like a broken record, China has good leadership today. But yesterday, Chinese leadership was tyrannical and incompetent. There is no guarantee that it will not be so again, but at least under a democracy, such incompetence has a term limit. I hope that if China does not embrace democracy, it at least creates a way to prevent the political cliques that we have seen formed under each CCP leadership.

Why the American system worked so well and is so popular?

Living standard but more importantly prestige. Roman empire had prestige even though it was an empire, that prestige made even America follow it. Don't say it was republican principles, there are tribes and even Greek states with far more democratic principles than Rome, in fact Rome wasn't even a democracy really when it became an empire.

But Rome still reign supreme in people's minds because of Prestige.

Democracy has about as many failed cases as did dictatorships, yet it is still preferred why? American prestige of power and wealth. If all Americans had was freedom like Argentinians, you think people would follow it?

Thus China's military supremacy, economic powers, and place in the world is of vital importance, if and when we control the South China Sea, the East China Sea, achieve absolute dominance in East and South East Asia, maybe even a victory or two, prestige will be the least of our worries.

With economic development and further show of Chinese economic power in all corners of the globe, I be more than surprised if our system isn't talked about as a good alternative.

If and when we achieve these successes, why would any Chinese wish for an American system that we in fact had pushed out of Asia. Why would people in China to adapt a system in favor of a system that had proven it self.

There's a lot of ifs in terms of improvements, and prestige, and this isn't the thread to talk about that, but you would be a fool to bet against us in any of the above category, and if you do, I think Gordon Chang may retire soon and they need a person to replace him, so suit up and get in line for that job.

Every time we engage in discussions about the Chinese political system, we agree until the conversation inevitably turns to this point, which is China's endless hunger for power and prestige. If not for this conclusion (and inevitably, it always reaches this conclusion), I would predict that China and the US would have warm, and possibly close relations within 20 years. Sadly, it's not to be.

We have gone over this enough times that I won't repeat my specific objections here, but I do want to emphasize that there are three sovereign nations in North America, not one. If American behaved as China accuses it of behaving (and seeks to emulate in its own sphere of influence), then North America would be a unified American empire, and South America would be comprised of tributary states to our power. As it stands, of course, the United States does not behave that way, and that is why we are able to accrue allies. I will never understand China's drive for conquest and control in its neighborhood, but I can confidently predict that such ambitions will not help the average Chinese citizen improve his life, and may in fact have severely detrimental effects on his standard of living.

China has done remarkable things, and continues to accrue prestige. Converting that prestige into hate and fear would seem to be a terrible way to end this story, and I hope the CCP is clever enough to look at the example of the USSR and draw the appropriate conclusions.

 

[Genesis]

First, thank you for this original analysis. I appreciate your well-reasoned explanation, and I learned a bit more about the Chinese perspective; this is why I return to PDF, day after day. If I could, I would give you a positive rating. That said, I have a few comments...



I posted in another thread (Emerging and Frontier Markets: Economic and Geopolitical Analysis ) a chart showing several high-growth success stories. Many countries have been able to achieve what China did, even if not on the scale of China, or the length of time China has sustained such growth. Most of these countries eventually transitioned to democracy, because as you pointed out later in your analysis, they fulfilled the other thresholds of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, and wanted more. I don't see anything in Chinese culture that would prevent it from successfully embracing democracy as well, especially given the events of 1989, and the examples of Taiwan and Hong Kong. True, it may need to be a gradual approach, but democracy is not antithetical to any of the qualities you admire in China today.

I think we have a misunderstanding here, I'm not saying we can't adopt democracy, I'm saying we may not want to, depending on how everything plays out.

Democracy, despite some calls from people here and there, the general support is not high, neither is there much opposition to be sure, what most people feel right now is reform is needed, but not so much to America, they just feel we need to better there and better here.

I believe the big divide between us is the misconception China eventually wants to be the US, China is very unique, we are the Rome that survived, and we actually started pre Rome, by quite a bit actually. We have had the experience as the dominant force pretty much up to Opium war.

US thinks nations want to be US is a misreading of the situation, Chinese wants our old prestige and empire back, not to be America 2.0.

I'm thinking the system right now if going in the direction Xi is setting and if works would set China up for that role again. If this system does work, why go for a democratic society?

Maslow's chart we have satisfied more or less the psychological, safety, love and belong? How that applies here, maybe international relations? Most head of state visits for a nation, and biggest trading partner.

Esteem we are working towards, as I said in the original post, that's military accomplishment, Chinese brands as international brands, China to be seen as a world leader, Space missions, and such.

Right now we are not near the self actualization, this will come later.

Now I can't speak for what will happen 20-30 years down, but from today's view, I think the current system after reform can provide all of that.

To cap off, why go for a US system, when in fact if ours works just as well in achieving all the goals US did.

Would it not be possible for nations to look at China and say that is the system for me.

If we do achieve all of those objectives, all that differentiates us should be that you vote and we don't.

The vote has a set of problem in itself, no shortage of people that shouldn't be in office and certainly no shortage of mismanagement and other things that are in effect.

I'm not saying one system is better for than the other, but if we can achieve said things, why swipe one set of problems for another.
The key is move forward, not sideways.

This is to be applauded, of course. And yet, this positive movement depends entirely on an enlightened leadership. Previous leadership in China did not combat corruption to this level; successive leadership may relapse and allow corruption to flourish once again. Democracy allows people to force a change in agenda through change in government, but there is no such mechanism in a dictatorship. Who will protect the people from a tyrannical CCP should another Mao arise? The army is a branch of the party.

Only independent institutions separate from a party can ensure long-term impartiality. Democracy may not be the best system, but it is the least worst system in implementing such separation of government institutions from political interference.

A true one party state has a top figure that transcends the party, which makes this system an effective dictatorship, but with the passing of Deng, and maybe to some degree the continue aging of Jiang, China has no more strong man. No one man can reverse course on progress.

While yes, China is a authoritarian, but they are accountable to the people, which may sound weird to you, but the reason I said we can export our system is for that exact reason, we have checks and balances in place that eliminates personal idols, without going into voting. It may seem weird but let me list a few things and see what you think.

1) China can never have a leader that goes 10 years, to stop one man from too much power.

2) Chinese people are educated, they are getting more and more difficult to deal with.

3) Chinese soldiers and bureaucracy have options and are not slaves to the top leaders, they have options and they have a voice. The CCP don't like to admit it but there are protests every year and they do bend a lot of the times.

4) The army by 1989 still had Deng, he was the top military strong men despite him never holding rank, he was on the boat charging at KMT going across the river, he may act like a civilian leader, but he's a military man through and through.

No other Civilian leader will have that much pull again.

Bottomline, China just isn't a dictatorship, it's a hybrid between authoritarian and democracy, it's our ancient system of government without the supreme emperor. It's a mix of West with the East, Mao said it best, authoritarian democracy. He didn't do it during his reign, but his successors actually did achieve it.

A big example is China was communist for so long, not just in name, but in everything. A lot of people including everyday people wanted a reversal in 1989, but Deng suppressed it and went full steam ahead, he didn't actually have too much power after Tiananmen, but he appealed to the common man, and the common response was to go full steam ahead, he actually broke party protocol and went to the people.

Even the hardliners, which at that time was quite powerful, and Chinese society quite a bit more subservient than today, had to accept that China is changing and their days are never coming back.

You must look at china like Japan, Korea. They all follow the old confusion principle, 社稷为重君为轻. This means sort of country is important, the emperor less so. The future of the country should be placed on top of individual emperors, this was not really implemented, but with the division of power, the 10 years terms, and end of one man idol, this is actually quite achievable.

This system of belief is quite different from Western belief.

You are correct that improving living standards will take care of many of these problems by itself. However, corruption does not recognize developed or non-developed status. Corruption is rife in Italy, with contractors bribing government bureaucrats, taxpayers bribing tax collectors, and so forth. It's true that democracy did not prevent this corruption in Italy, but that is because Italy has weak institutions, and a permissive culture for this sort of behavior. Culture matters. If Chinese society tolerates the small bribes (such as your relative bribing in order to put up a sign), it will also tolerate large bribes. China needs strong institutions and a culture that does not condone such behavior, but it seems unlikely to achieve that until the people have the power to punish such behavior. Right now, their only means of doing so is through rioting, which is far from the optimal solution.

China has been corrupt for too long due to these petty reasons, the common man is very tired of it. The difference between China and Italy, is Chinese worship such men like HaiRui who brought a coffin to court, to demonstrate his willingness to die for the greater good of the country.

China has vast periods of good governance. Italy on the other hand is one corrupt prince to the next, then fascists than now, China has a very different mind set.


I'll draw you a bigger map, say my relative bribes the dude, his boss knows about this, so he must kick up, his boss's boss also knows, but he can't go over his men's head, but the guy below him wants a promotion, so he kicks up. The the big boss doesn't know or care, but he controls a few things, so for a favor the guys below him kicks up. Once the bottom dries, it will be quite a bit cleaner.

This is a very simple way of looking at it, the real deal is far more complicated.

In terms of big business doing that, you don't have to fear it with China, Chinese's division of power is very potent, we do that with every industry and in reality due to the size of China no one can dominate anyways.

So the rivalries between them are the check and balances, Italy unlike the US which also due to its natural market size, has the big corporations that don't really have much competition simply because the country cannot sustain that many.

This reminds me of the old saying, "it's a recession when your friend is unemployed, it's a depression when you are unemployed." It's easy for you to dismiss the censorship as long as it doesn't affect you, but you will likely regret such dismissals if you are ever subject to abuses by the state followed by a cover-up. It's the same in the US, but at least we have the possibility of an independent media doing an investigation, even if in practice the majority of the media is in the pocket of the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, it's important to allow the opportunity for watchdogs to inform the people and shame abusers.

I say this is true, I have not considered that. I and my friends and relative are typical Chinese in a metropolitan sense, there are many more who are not us.

But I must mention this, someone is going to be the odd man out, but the silver lining is, China is improving and in that their decedents will also have improved standards of living and education and in effect more power, so what they faced, likely won't happen in the future.

But just to be sure, you be surprised how much China actually reports, due to Western media so use to seeing English reports, China actually do most of our reporting in Chinese and thus, the West misses a lot of good reporting.

Chinese reporters are not robots, they have the same aspirations as Western ones, and that's a good story. You be surprised what goes as passable and as not passable. For example yellow duck, no, but government screwing over dudes for monetary gain, yes. 1989, no, mass protests against environment and worker strikes, yes, Also exposing corruption on weibo, journalists go deep inside prostitution rings, drug rings, and other rings, as well as against state companies sometimes, more often now days.

I hope I have convinced you in my time here that as much as I criticize China, I appreciate that these changes will take time, and I am optimistic in the long term that China will converge with us socially, just as it has converged economically. I don't expect China to look like America, but I also see no reason why China cannot or should not enjoy the same freedoms we do.

China isn't perfect, I hate reading those who blindly say China is great in everything, at the same time those that blindly hate, is also not bookmarked.

I think you are reasonable, a lot of our differences, stem from the fact, despite being a nation with almost no history, you are a status quo nation, we are a rising nation, so while you consider 20 years to be a short time, but 10 years to China is a life time.

Our nation changes way too much, remember 30 years ago? America is more technologically advanced, as expected, fashion changed, but other things more or less remains the same, China from 10 years ago to now is earth to mars.

That drastically affects how we see the same issue. 1989, big issue to you, to me it seems another life time ago, ironically that's when I was born, my mom was fearing for the country to be plunged back into chaos on the eve of my birth.

It sounds enticing, to be sure. I can't remember if it were you or another user who introduced me to the works of Dambisa Moyo, an economist who is a great admirer of the Chinese system of state capitalism, but this is her main point as well. I can only say in response that when it works, nothing works better than enlightened despotism. Leadership makes a decision, and then executes the decision. The problem is when the despots are not so enlightened--then they make decisions, and execute dissenters, even if the dissenters happen to be right.

China has admirably embraced meritocracy in many areas. But the very fact that individuals like Zhou Yongkang could rise up so far and engage in so much corruption calls into question the purity of China's claims of meritocracy. As I repeat like a broken record, China has good leadership today. But yesterday, Chinese leadership was tyrannical and incompetent. There is no guarantee that it will not be so again, but at least under a democracy, such incompetence has a term limit. I hope that if China does not embrace democracy, it at least creates a way to prevent the political cliques that we have seen formed under each CCP leadership.

I showed a few videos, but I remember someone else as well. As I previously said the current system of changing leadership is different from anything else even our old systems. The only thing that's certain in China is before you die, you will lose power.

Zhou YongKang was corrupt, but it's wrong to label him as incompetent, one of my relatives is in the party, and he met him a few times in national meetings, this guy exudes charisma, and very sharp as well as very capable. A lot of his failings can be attributed to the times, we must look at him the same as the nation, he was born in that time, he was in the party at that time, had he been born a different time, like now, would he need to do the same?

Keep in mind a lot of the successes for oil and spying are due to his direct contribution.

Dissenters are not all purged, none of them should, but you got to be pretty stupid and annoying for them to do anything, one of the biggest critics and supporters of CCP is a frequent guest in top universities for lectures, 李敖. He scares the crap out of deans due to not knowing what he's going to say. He's Taiwanese btw. But he's still a welcome figure due to his blunt truth telling style of lecture.

Every time we engage in discussions about the Chinese political system, we agree until the conversation inevitably turns to this point, which is China's endless hunger for power and prestige. If not for this conclusion (and inevitably, it always reaches this conclusion), I would predict that China and the US would have warm, and possibly close relations within 20 years. Sadly, it's not to be.

We have gone over this enough times that I won't repeat my specific objections here, but I do want to emphasize that there are three sovereign nations in North America, not one. If American behaved as China accuses it of behaving (and seeks to emulate in its own sphere of influence), then North America would be a unified American empire, and South America would be comprised of tributary states to our power. As it stands, of course, the United States does not behave that way, and that is why we are able to accrue allies. I will never understand China's drive for conquest and control in its neighborhood, but I can confidently predict that such ambitions will not help the average Chinese citizen improve his life, and may in fact have severely detrimental effects on his standard of living.

China has done remarkable things, and continues to accrue prestige. Converting that prestige into hate and fear would seem to be a terrible way to end this story, and I hope the CCP is clever enough to look at the example of the USSR and draw the appropriate conclusions.

I agree, we could be very good friends if not for this little problem between us, for example the world would be a lot safer, if China and US see eye to eye in examples like Syria, Iran, Iraq, Africa, Ukraine, and China really could do all of this no problem, but America needs to keep this in mind, stay out of my immediate neighborhood, we can agree on things like peace, security and prosperity in NEUTRAL areas, but what's my is my.

Divide the world into spheres, and both stay out of each other's , and we can be good, at least for a while, but failing that we have nothing to talk about.

China won't return to tributary system, we would bring peace to Asia same as you did to NA. We don't want to conquer land, and we want good relationships for trade ASEAN +3 is not a plot to conquer them.


But you can't break our fundamental principles and one of them is no one is to ever again be able to threaten war on Chinese soil. Right now you got that ability, and we are not comfortable with that, just like you guys are not with our ballistic missiles and hyper-sonic reentry vehicles.



The divide here is you are coming from an American view that you are in fact good, but from our view, we don't care if you are or not, but we are not comfortable if someone else got a sword on our heads, doesn't matter who it is, we didn't accept it from the Soviets and we will not accept it now.


Lastly, hate and fear is relative, the minute 1962 ended, Pakistan and China great friends, we are just as strong and overwhelming relative to other SCO members, but they don't fear us.

Fear will only happen if they chose to have it, fear can turn into pride like that. For example Vietnam war, today Vietnam is seeking help from the US, at which point in the last 100 years did we do to Vietnam remotely what you did.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

I think we have a misunderstanding here, I'm not saying we can't adopt democracy, I'm saying we may not want to, depending on how everything plays out.

Democracy, despite some calls from people here and there, the general support is not high, neither is there much opposition to be sure, what most people feel right now is reform is needed, but not so much to America, they just feel we need to better there and better here.

I believe the big divide between us is the misconception China eventually wants to be the US, China is very unique, we are the Rome that survived, and we actually started pre Rome, by quite a bit actually. We have had the experience as the dominant force pretty much up to Opium war.

US thinks nations want to be US is a misreading of the situation, Chinese wants our old prestige and empire back, not to be America 2.0.

I'm thinking the system right now if going in the direction Xi is setting and if works would set China up for that role again. If this system does work, why go for a democratic society?

Maslow's chart we have satisfied more or less the psychological, safety, love and belong? How that applies here, maybe international relations? Most head of state visits for a nation, and biggest trading partner.

Esteem we are working towards, as I said in the original post, that's military accomplishment, Chinese brands as international brands, China to be seen as a world leader, Space missions, and such.

Right now we are not near the self actualization, this will come later.

Now I can't speak for what will happen 20-30 years down, but from today's view, I think the current system after reform can provide all of that.

To cap off, why go for a US system, when in fact if ours works just as well in achieving all the goals US did.

Would it not be possible for nations to look at China and say that is the system for me.

If we do achieve all of those objectives, all that differentiates us should be that you vote and we don't.

The vote has a set of problem in itself, no shortage of people that shouldn't be in office and certainly no shortage of mismanagement and other things that are in effect.

I'm not saying one system is better for than the other, but if we can achieve said things, why swipe one set of problems for another.
The key is move forward, not sideways.



A true one party state has a top figure that transcends the party, which makes this system an effective dictatorship, but with the passing of Deng, and maybe to some degree the continue aging of Jiang, China has no more strong man. No one man can reverse course on progress.

While yes, China is a authoritarian, but they are accountable to the people, which may sound weird to you, but the reason I said we can export our system is for that exact reason, we have checks and balances in place that eliminates personal idols, without going into voting. It may seem weird but let me list a few things and see what you think.

1) China can never have a leader that goes 10 years, to stop one man from too much power.

2) Chinese people are educated, they are getting more and more difficult to deal with.

3) Chinese soldiers and bureaucracy have options and are not slaves to the top leaders, they have options and they have a voice. The CCP don't like to admit it but there are protests every year and they do bend a lot of the times.

4) The army by 1989 still had Deng, he was the top military strong men despite him never holding rank, he was on the boat charging at KMT going across the river, he may act like a civilian leader, but he's a military man through and through.

No other Civilian leader will have that much pull again.

Bottomline, China just isn't a dictatorship, it's a hybrid between authoritarian and democracy, it's our ancient system of government without the supreme emperor. It's a mix of West with the East, Mao said it best, authoritarian democracy. He didn't do it during his reign, but his successors actually did achieve it.

A big example is China was communist for so long, not just in name, but in everything. A lot of people including everyday people wanted a reversal in 1989, but Deng suppressed it and went full steam ahead, he didn't actually have too much power after Tiananmen, but he appealed to the common man, and the common response was to go full steam ahead, he actually broke party protocol and went to the people.

Even the hardliners, which at that time was quite powerful, and Chinese society quite a bit more subservient than today, had to accept that China is changing and their days are never coming back.

You must look at china like Japan, Korea. They all follow the old confusion principle, 社稷为重君为轻. This means sort of country is important, the emperor less so. The future of the country should be placed on top of individual emperors, this was not really implemented, but with the division of power, the 10 years terms, and end of one man idol, this is actually quite achievable.

This system of belief is quite different from Western belief.



China has been corrupt for too long due to these petty reasons, the common man is very tired of it. The difference between China and Italy, is Chinese worship such men like HaiRui who brought a coffin to court, to demonstrate his willingness to die for the greater good of the country.

China has vast periods of good governance. Italy on the other hand is one corrupt prince to the next, then fascists than now, China has a very different mind set.


I'll draw you a bigger map, say my relative bribes the dude, his boss knows about this, so he must kick up, his boss's boss also knows, but he can't go over his men's head, but the guy below him wants a promotion, so he kicks up. The the big boss doesn't know or care, but he controls a few things, so for a favor the guys below him kicks up. Once the bottom dries, it will be quite a bit cleaner.

This is a very simple way of looking at it, the real deal is far more complicated.

In terms of big business doing that, you don't have to fear it with China, Chinese's division of power is very potent, we do that with every industry and in reality due to the size of China no one can dominate anyways.

So the rivalries between them are the check and balances, Italy unlike the US which also due to its natural market size, has the big corporations that don't really have much competition simply because the country cannot sustain that many.





I say this is true, I have not considered that. I and my friends and relative are typical Chinese in a metropolitan sense, there are many more who are not us.

But I must mention this, someone is going to be the odd man out, but the silver lining is, China is improving and in that their decedents will also have improved standards of living and education and in effect more power, so what they faced, likely won't happen in the future.

But just to be sure, you be surprised how much China actually reports, due to Western media so use to seeing English reports, China actually do most of our reporting in Chinese and thus, the West misses a lot of good reporting.

Chinese reporters are not robots, they have the same aspirations as Western ones, and that's a good story. You be surprised what goes as passable and as not passable. For example yellow duck, no, but government screwing over dudes for monetary gain, yes. 1989, no, mass protests against environment and worker strikes, yes, Also exposing corruption on weibo, journalists go deep inside prostitution rings, drug rings, and other rings, as well as against state companies sometimes, more often now days.




China isn't perfect, I hate reading those who blindly say China is great in everything, at the same time those that blindly hate, is also not bookmarked.

I think you are reasonable, a lot of our differences, stem from the fact, despite being a nation with almost no history, you are a status quo nation, we are a rising nation, so while you consider 20 years to be a short time, but 10 years to China is a life time.

Our nation changes way too much, remember 30 years ago? America is more technologically advanced, as expected, fashion changed, but other things more or less remains the same, China from 10 years ago to now is earth to mars.

That drastically affects how we see the same issue. 1989, big issue to you, to me it seems another life time ago, ironically that's when I was born, my mom was fearing for the country to be plunged back into chaos on the eve of my birth.



I showed a few videos, but I remember someone else as well. As I previously said the current system of changing leadership is different from anything else even our old systems. The only thing that's certain in China is before you die, you will lose power.

Zhou YongKang was corrupt, but it's wrong to label him as incompetent, one of my relatives is in the party, and he met him a few times in national meetings, this guy exudes charisma, and very sharp as well as very capable. A lot of his failings can be attributed to the times, we must look at him the same as the nation, he was born in that time, he was in the party at that time, had he been born a different time, like now, would he need to do the same?

Keep in mind a lot of the successes for oil and spying are due to his direct contribution.

Dissenters are not all purged, none of them should, but you got to be pretty stupid and annoying for them to do anything, one of the biggest critics and supporters of CCP is a frequent guest in top universities for lectures, 李敖. He scares the crap out of deans due to not knowing what he's going to say. He's Taiwanese btw. But he's still a welcome figure due to his blunt truth telling style of lecture.




I agree, we could be very good friends if not for this little problem between us, for example the world would be a lot safer, if China and US see eye to eye in examples like Syria, Iran, Iraq, Africa, Ukraine, and China really could do all of this no problem, but America needs to keep this in mind, stay out of my immediate neighborhood, we can agree on things like peace, security and prosperity in NEUTRAL areas, but what's my is my.

Divide the world into spheres, and both stay out of each other's , and we can be good, at least for a while, but failing that we have nothing to talk about.

China won't return to tributary system, we would bring peace to Asia same as you did to NA. We don't want to conquer land, and we want good relationships for trade ASEAN +3 is not a plot to conquer them.


But you can't break our fundamental principles and one of them is no one is to ever again be able to threaten war on Chinese soil. Right now you got that ability, and we are not comfortable with that, just like you guys are not with our ballistic missiles and hyper-sonic reentry vehicles.



The divide here is you are coming from an American view that you are in fact good, but from our view, we don't care if you are or not, but we are not comfortable if someone else got a sword on our heads, doesn't matter who it is, we didn't accept it from the Soviets and we will not accept it now.


Lastly, hate and fear is relative, the minute 1962 ended, Pakistan and China great friends, we are just as strong and overwhelming relative to other SCO members, but they don't fear us.

Fear will only happen if they chose to have it, fear can turn into pride like that. For example Vietnam war, today Vietnam is seeking help from the US, at which point in the last 100 years did we do to Vietnam remotely what you did.

That clarified a lot, thank you for the explanation. While I'm sad that I probably won't live to see it, it sounds like it's simply a matter of time for China and the US to reach an understanding; it's just a matter of different stages of development that separate our perspectives.

I also appreciate your point about America's relative position in its own continent vs. China's position in Asia. We are able to project power because we take for granted our own security, which I sometimes forget given the worldwide hatred of the US. But China doesn't have the physical separation to enjoy that psychological sense of safety, which explains much.

I am intrigued by your mention of 李敖, can you please provide more information, and are any of his lectures available in English?

 

[Cossack25A1]

The ultimate question here is how one would define "Democracy" because the idea of democracy China has may differ to the idea of democracy America has. In fact, the original idea of democracy that the Ancient Greeks had is different to the modern-day interpretation of democracy.

 

[Aepsilons]

Of course Democracy (with Chinese cultural traits) is possible for China. Chinese society is Confucian in nature, authoritarian and filial. In fact, i would go as far to say that the social construct in China is almost the same as those in other North East Asian societies that are Democracies: Japan and South Korea. If Japan and South Korea can implement a Democratic Government (tho with their own unique Japanese and Korean cultural traits), there's no reason why it wouldn't work for China.

Japan is a Constitutional Monarchy, whereas South Korea is a Republic. Both are centered on democratic principles with unique Confucian cultural traits. Both are also successful economies.

 

[Cossack25A1]

Sadly, the common idea of democracy most Filipinos hold border to anarchism or mob-rule.

 

[Aepsilons]

Sadly, the common idea of democracy most Filipinos hold border to anarchism or mob-rule.

I think this concept of perpetual People's Power as seen in the Philippines should be controlled. I'm sure the rallying of some several thousands in Metro Manila do not represent the vast population of the Republic of the Philippines. And I doubt they represent the voices of the millions in northern Luzon, the Visayas and Mindanao. But the Philippines is on the right track. Afterall, it was only recently since 1986 that the nation was able to get back to its democratic roots (after a long dictatorial sabbatical).

 

[Genesis]

That clarified a lot, thank you for the explanation. While I'm sad that I probably won't live to see it, it sounds like it's simply a matter of time for China and the US to reach an understanding; it's just a matter of different stages of development that separate our perspectives.

I also appreciate your point about America's relative position in its own continent vs. China's position in Asia. We are able to project power because we take for granted our own security, which I sometimes forget given the worldwide hatred of the US. But China doesn't have the physical separation to enjoy that psychological sense of safety, which explains much.

I am intrigued by your mention of 李敖, can you please provide more information, and are any of his lectures available in English?

I don't know about an understanding ,while I am optimistic but if human nature is anything, if it's not this it's that, the world will never be short of things to fight over. That I feel maybe the final conclusion......

Yes, but I feel your understanding won't be shared, not least because no one wants to. I don't blame them, power is addicting, and having a sword over someone feels infinitely better, besides, you are already giving Obama a hard time, can you imagine the president that hands Asia to China lol.


李敖 is a good lecturer he's pretty funny, but it's hard to find lectures with english subs, if I find it I will post it. Though I will talk about a experience, he talks about the Beiyang warlords and how they made Beijing university dean a KMT member because of merit when both Chinas refuse to recognize each other.

He talks much about personal freedom, and the ideas of freedom. He even talks rising up against the government, and 1989.

He talks about the censors and how he got 96 books censored by the government and even joked he sells them as **** mags to confuse the cops.

He heavily criticize the Chinese leadership on banning personal freedoms and even ridicules them.

But he's still invited back.

I will draw a line, he's anti everything but freedom, the key being everything. You can't be just anti China in China, or anti CCP in China, but if you are anti a lot of things, you might be feared and not invited to talk, though he's a good speaker so they take the chance, they won't arrest you.

But to be purely anti China, then we got a problem.

Now I don't agree with this, but it seems that's where the CCP draws the line.

Of course Democracy (with Chinese cultural traits) is possible for China. Chinese society is Confucian in nature, authoritarian and filial. In fact, i would go as far to say that the social construct in China is almost the same as those in other North East Asian societies that are Democracies: Japan and South Korea. If Japan and South Korea can implement a Democratic Government (tho with their own unique Japanese and Korean cultural traits), there's no reason why it wouldn't work for China.

Japan is a Constitutional Monarchy, whereas South Korea is a Republic. Both are centered on democratic principles with unique Confucian cultural traits. Both are also successful economies.

first you guys had 2000 years of our culture, though Japan less so, but before Meiji, we can see Japan was less advanced than Korea or China.

And that's why we would behave more or less the same.


Second as I explained to LEverage, I didn't say we can't handle it, but if we can do everything the Americans could with our system, why switch it for a different set of problems, refer to my longer posts for more detain.

The idea of democracy's spread to me is less so about progress, but about prestige, people forget how powerful, empires were before the rise of Pax Americana. Prussia was even the first to worry about social welfare of the working class, being a total dictatorial empire.

So my point is if China is able to achieve that prestige, it's highly unlikely Chinese would opt for a foreign system that to them have been defeated by us or at the very least about a equal to our system with different advantages and disadvantages.

 

[tonyget]

when you make it to lala land where rainbows are made of marshmallows and the rivers are chocolate, can you leave me a ticket? I also like to go there.

Meanwhile back on earth realities are realities, what exactly do you think scientists do all day? You know reforestation takes some hundreds of years along, while China right now has world's 20 percent population but only 7 percent water right.

Over population is not a myth or a theory it's a fact.

Mao encouraged people to have more children, and his successor had to deal with the mess he left.

 

[tonyget]

Japan is a Constitutional Monarchy, whereas South Korea is a Republic. Both are centered on democratic principles with unique Confucian cultural traits. Both are also successful economies.

@Nihonjin1051

Japan's case is interesting.

All countries in world had experienced revolution/dynastic changes at some point in history, Japan is the only country in world that the ruling royal family has never ever changed throughout entire history. This is amazing.

 

[Aepsilons]

@Nihonjin1051

Japan's case is interesting.

All countries in world had experienced revolution/dynastic changes at some point in history, Japan is the only country in world that the ruling royal family has never ever changed throughout entire history. This is amazing.

The Imperial Family , for most of its 2500 of existence, has had a religious-political clout. The Emperor of Japan was considered divine , officially and politically, since it is recorded that the first Imperial ancestor was the grandson of the sun goddess, Amaterasu Omikami. Thus the Emperor was , literally, above politics. Rather, the one who wielded actual political and military control were the Shoguns. In Japanese history we had our own dynastic changes in Shogunates: 1) Heian Shogunate, 2) Kamakura Shogunate, 3) Ashikaga Shogunate, 4) Tokugawa Shogunate.

The Imperial Family, for the most part, was the symbol of the State and it was only recently during the advent of the Bakufu Wars and subsequent Meiji Restoration that the Imperial House ventured out if its largely symbolic nature.

But yes, officially, the Emperor of Japan had renounced any claim to divinity as per the 1945 Treaty of Peace with the United States. However, in Japanese Shinto Religion, the Emperor is still considered the descendent of the Sun goddess, Amaterasu Omi Kami.

I don't know about an understanding ,while I am optimistic but if human nature is anything, if it's not this it's that, the world will never be short of things to fight over. That I feel maybe the final conclusion......

Yes, but I feel your understanding won't be shared, not least because no one wants to. I don't blame them, power is addicting, and having a sword over someone feels infinitely better, besides, you are already giving Obama a hard time, can you imagine the president that hands Asia to China lol.


李敖 is a good lecturer he's pretty funny, but it's hard to find lectures with english subs, if I find it I will post it. Though I will talk about a experience, he talks about the Beiyang warlords and how they made Beijing university dean a KMT member because of merit when both Chinas refuse to recognize each other.

He talks much about personal freedom, and the ideas of freedom. He even talks rising up against the government, and 1989.

He talks about the censors and how he got 96 books censored by the government and even joked he sells them as **** mags to confuse the cops.

He heavily criticize the Chinese leadership on banning personal freedoms and even ridicules them.

But he's still invited back.

I will draw a line, he's anti everything but freedom, the key being everything. You can't be just anti China in China, or anti CCP in China, but if you are anti a lot of things, you might be feared and not invited to talk, though he's a good speaker so they take the chance, they won't arrest you.

But to be purely anti China, then we got a problem.

Now I don't agree with this, but it seems that's where the CCP draws the line.



first you guys had 2000 years of our culture, though Japan less so, but before Meiji, we can see Japan was less advanced than Korea or China.

And that's why we would behave more or less the same.


Second as I explained to LEverage, I didn't say we can't handle it, but if we can do everything the Americans could with our system, why switch it for a different set of problems, refer to my longer posts for more detain.

The idea of democracy's spread to me is less so about progress, but about prestige, people forget how powerful, empires were before the rise of Pax Americana. Prussia was even the first to worry about social welfare of the working class, being a total dictatorial empire.

So my point is if China is able to achieve that prestige, it's highly unlikely Chinese would opt for a foreign system that to them have been defeated by us or at the very least about a equal to our system with different advantages and disadvantages.

I really appreciate the write up and explanation. Excellent!

@Genesis, I think this article will be of interest for you:

5 Ways China Could Become a Democracy | The Diplomat

 

[TaiShang]

So to sum up again, China's problem has a lot to do with our status as a developing nation rather than a straight up failure of the system like many developing nations that are not actually improving, China isn't the Soviets and is offering a way of life that is very desirable to America and thus could hold our own against America's ideology of liberal democracy.

Amazing post, @Genesis .

The West would really like to see China remain a pure, Soviet-style communist nation.

What enrages them is that China is a system of government by itself that copies no one blindly, but thrives on its on historical and contemporary realities, cultural traits and understandings.

This way, China does pose a challenge to Western governance supremacy by offering itself not as a copy of the West, but an alternative to it.

While I'm sad that I probably won't live to see it, it sounds like it's simply a matter of time for China and the US to reach an understanding; it's just a matter of different stages of development that separate our perspectives.

That won't happen so long as the US keeps the same attitude of deciding what is good and what is bad for others.

China will never be a US 2.0. It will be and remain China. Yet, China won't oppose if the US decides to copy us.