What's new

Eric X. Li: A tale of two political systems

TaiShang

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
27,848
Reaction score
70
Country
China
Location
Taiwan, Province Of China
It's a standard assumption in the West: As a society progresses, it eventually becomes a capitalist, multi-party democracy. Right? Eric X. Li, a Chinese investor and political scientist, begs to differ. In this provocative, boundary-pushing talk, he asks his audience to consider that there's more than one way to run a succesful modern nation.

 
India used so called democracy to infiltrate Bangladesh and install their puppet dictator. So we saw first hand what democracy did in a poor underdeveloped country. Bangladesh also needs an efficient one party meritocratic system like China.
 
It's a standard assumption in the West: As a society progresses, it eventually becomes a capitalist, multi-party democracy. Right? Eric X. Li, a Chinese investor and political scientist, begs to differ. In this provocative, boundary-pushing talk, he asks his audience to consider that there's more than one way to run a succesful modern nation.


Wow, very compelling. I saw only two flaws:

1) There was a bit of sleight-of-hand, though, in that frequent polling and adjusting done by the Chinese Community Party really is a proxy for democratic elections. When the polling/adjusting mechanism stops (due to corruption, mis-alignment of the elite and public opinion, misinterpretation of the public will, etc.), that's when the system will break down, as it has occasionally done in China's history. We can see a hint of that in the friction that is apparent in HK, where the appointed government does not necessarily align with the wishes of a large minority of the population.

2) Related to point #1, when a sizable minority no longer feels its values or goals are reflected in the government, what will the Party do? Is it enough to say that 51% agree with the Party, so it should stay the course? Meanwhile, the minority has no mechanism (e.g. elections) by which to make its will apparent, or at least vent its opposition. That seems like a recipe for instability. We're not close to that point yet, but as the costs of growth increase (social tensions, environmental degradation, etc.), this problem is sure to emerge.

That said, Li makes a great case for an alternative system. I wish we had such a thorough vetting system for our politicians.
 
I will support one party system in China if the Chinese Communist Party drops its reference to "communism" and Marxism. I am not a European and not interested in Karl Mark. I am also not interested in communism whose ideal is to share wealth equally but in reality steal people's wealth in the name of state.
 
I will support one party system in China if the Chinese Communist Party drops its reference to "communism" and Marxism. I am not a European and not interested in Karl Mark. I am also not interested in communism whose ideal is to share wealth equally but in reality steal people's wealth in the name of state.

Chinese model has little to do with Marxism, in fact, and probably the title remains there because no other better term has not been created yet.

It is the duty of young political scientists and IR Theorists of China to formulate a genuine Chinese political theory. It will take time but there is already a huge scholarship going on, which is very encouraging.

Political scientists should continue philosophizing and formulating a truly indigenous model that is both eclectic and praxeological.

So, I think we have every reason to be upbeat and optimistic about this, my friend.

Chinese model is at least as much away from orthodox Marxism as it is from liberalism because it simply rejects the Marxian linear historical development thesis. Such a fundamental digression already renders China an essentially non-Marxist country.

To develop theory, frankly, is not the job of the bureaucrats or the statesmen although the statesmen can provide strong historical evidence for the philosopher to draw on and develop a complete indigenous Chinese political system.

The video above, is striking to me since it really makes a strong point, albeit implicitly, toward such development. Mr. Li is a pragmatist and he expresses himself that way, but, the same ideas can be told very deeply and philosophically, by a political scientist.

I applaud him for his well-thought and well-articulated ideas.
 
Last edited:
when a sizable minority no longer feels its values or goals are reflected in the government, what will the Party do? Is it enough to say that 51% agree with the Party, so it should stay the course? Meanwhile, the minority has no mechanism (e.g. elections) by which to make its will apparent, or at least vent its opposition. That seems like a recipe for instability. We're not close to that point yet, but as the costs of growth increase (social tensions, environmental degradation, etc.), this problem is sure to emerge.

Well, one of the life lesson everyone learns sooner or later is that you cannot please everybody. Conflict and competition of all forms exists at every level of society and in any realistic system, someone would be unhappy about something.

It is necessary to differentiate "necessities" with "preferences". For example, having enough food to eat is a necessity. Having a four-star restaurant level meal every time is a preference. Historically speaking, a nation's stability is generally not threatened by unhappiness as long as all the necessities are filled.

Now, on the topic of mechanism to express one's opinion, election certainly is a potential tool of doing that, but if you rely on that as the end all method to express your interests and needs, then you are in quite a bit trouble. Because, elections are ultimately a legal way for larger group of people to overrule smaller group of people with their opinions. Take US' elective procedures, for example, US state level election is winner takes all. This means as long as you are not the majority party within the state, having 1 million voters is no different from having 0 voters. Also, elections only occur once every four years. This means in order to express an opinion, you require four year of waiting and even then, there is no guarantee your voice will be heard if you are not the majority.

Plus, you know, the fundamental purpose of having an election is picking a suitable candidate to administrate your nation. Since personal interest of individual is not necessarily aligned with long term interest of the nation as a whole, it can actually be detrimental to use elections to express your opinion. A good example is Greece (or lots of other European nations really). The voters want more social benefit, more tax cut, more vacation and more freebies and they expressed that opinion through their election, but what Greece actually SHOULD do is cutting benefits, makes the lazy bums to work more, so the nation would actually have an economy left, but since the voters wants social benefit, the politicians are left with two choices :
A.) Ignore long term national interest and implement benefits, pleasing the voters in short term, but ruin the economy in the long term and ended up making the voters angry at them for ruining the economy.
B.) Lying on health benefit and cut them as soon as they get into the official, this may help the nation in the long run, but their personal career is finished. The voters will vote the next politician that promises more and the cycle repeats.
It is like a no-win scenario.

So what should we do? Well, the Chinese's answer is that while we most definitely need some ways to hear people's opinion and preferences, it is not going to be bundled with selection process for leaders, because that is just asking for trouble. Common method include active survey, in depth reviews with local representatives and administrators, inspections, hotline reports, etc, etc. What is the center idea from all this? Balancing the needs and wants of a nation is a complex, ever changing task and there is no easy or single "fix" that all solve all the problems. On this topic I must mention the Indian PM Modi. I have read quite a lot of posts regarding to hopes and wishes the Indian people have for him, but my observation on the issue is that they are often asking too much for one PM who may or may not have even a decade of time in office. This mentality of one good leader will fix everything is pretty much the same as the belief that elections will fix everything and is generally a disappointment waiting to happen.
 
I will support one party system in China if the Chinese Communist Party drops its reference to "communism" and Marxism. I am not a European and not interested in Karl Mark. I am also not interested in communism whose ideal is to share wealth equally but in reality steal people's wealth in the name of state.

Text book definition of communism is "Communism is a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production." The shared part is means of production, not personal wealth. None of the communist nations (USSR, China, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea, etc) ever practiced sharing of personal wealth.

Communism is born from the belief that total free market economy (something that only occurs in very early stages of capitalism) creates unsustainable social conflicts, thus it took on step farther from other socialism's regulated market economy into a purely planned economy.

Of course, just like pure free market economy, pure planned economy proved to be unfeasible due to its horrendous inefficiency in larger nations (Smaller nations, such as Cuba, generally works better with pure planned economy because there is simply a lot less thing to administrate).
 
I will support one party system in China if the Chinese Communist Party drops its reference to "communism" and Marxism. I am not a European and not interested in Karl Mark. I am also not interested in communism whose ideal is to share wealth equally but in reality steal people's wealth in the name of state.

Judge a man by its actions, not by his name.
 
I prefer "socialism" over "communism", but it is impossible. That requires people to be honest with each other. Communism is not bad ideology, but the leader always mess it up. Give a man power and he will show his true self, and communism gives leaders too much power for its own good. If the leader is good at heart, then good for the country. If not, then the country is screwed.

Either ways, when I think about political systems and classes issues, this comes to me "There are only 2 classes in this world, the opperesor and the opperesed. The opperesor wants to maintain their power and push down the opperesed, while the opperesed tries to rise up and throw down the opperesor, only to become the new opperesor themselves."
 
It's a standard assumption in the West: As a society progresses, it eventually becomes a capitalist, multi-party democracy. Right? Eric X. Li, a Chinese investor and political scientist, begs to differ. In this provocative, boundary-pushing talk, he asks his audience to consider that there's more than one way to run a succesful modern nation.

This guy made some valid points which i think a lot of Westerners today, especially the proponents of forcing Democracy on other nations, overlook or are ignorant of. If a particular political/economic system works in one country does not mean it will work for another, and secondly there are alternatives to Democracy like the One Party System in China (i wouldn't call it Communism) which works marvelously for the Chinese.

:china:
 
Back
Top Bottom