Eric X. Li: A tale of two political systems

[ephone]

I saw that when it was initially released on TED. I think it is interesting.

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.

 

[Okemos]

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 understand all those communist theory since I have been brainwashed since elementary school by one "ideology," by one political theory instead of being taught modern theories and even our Confucianism. We were born in China, but we were forced to learn only one theory created by a Jew in Germany hundred years ago as absolute truth? Gee. I guess Karl Marx is God of human thinking. This totalitarian hijacking of free thinking is unprecedented in Chinese history.

I am also averse to the class struggle crap and class warfare, etc etc, that are integral part of communism and "Marxism." This class warfare crap creates internal conflict, a sense of insecurity among the rich, or even the middle class. Even if the class warfare wont happen again, but as long as the party still holds those ideologies, those fears hang over people's head like Damocles sword. This fear is part of reasons why rich Chinese flee China, taking with them tons of capital that should be invested in China. You can tell even now some average Chinese still think they are entitled to other people's wealth, they hate rich people, they hate people more successful than them. Those hatred can partly be attributed to the communist theory that only humans can create wealth and rich people exploit other people blah blah, etc, etc. crap We have to objectively look at the situation if we really wish China good.

The reason why I will support one party system is because the current system has its historical basis and can be easily modified to fit with traditional Chinese political theories. It's extremely hard to create a multi-party democracy since a big country with no such tradition will take too much effort and its result is not guaranteed, i.e. a possible collapse of the whole country. Therefore, a liberal one party system is more stable and easier to evolve. I recommend you read a book written by Qian Mu. Of course, he was educated in Republic of China era, and a traditional Chinese scholar, but I think some of his works are thought provoking.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

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 see the truth of your words, but it is also the issue that I must continue to question. The Party's legitimacy doesn't derive from its institutions or structures, it derives from its competence and ability to provide growth (wealth, jobs) to the people. When that growth slows or stops, the Party will be severely tested. We have not approached that point in its current incarnation, but Mao's abject failures in the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution led to the deaths of millions--who knows how China would have ended up if he had been able to rule so incompetently for another few years?

At the same time, America is falling into dysfunction for exactly the same reason. The system worked because it delivered to the people a steadily rising standard of living. Now that the standard of living has stagnated, the people are losing faith in the system, and polls consistently show trust in American politicians in the single digits. The question becomes whether the American people trust the institutions enough to wait for competent politicians to arrive, or will we have a social breakdown? Americans feel they have some influence through the ballot box, at least, but if they had no say whatsoever, as is the case in China, the situation could deteriorate rapidly. If I'm not mistaken, that's essentially what happened every time China fell into upheaval in the past: a corrupt and ineffective Mandarin class was essentially overthrown. If Americans fail to elect good politicians, we blame the politicians, but we remember our own responsibility in the matter. Will Chinese citizens be as forgiving at the first signs of failure?

 

[TaiShang]

The reason why I will support one party system is because the current system has its historical basis and can be easily modified to fit with traditional Chinese political theories. It's extremely hard to create a multi-party democracy since a big country with no such tradition will take too much effort and its result is not guaranteed, i.e. a possible collapse of the whole country.

Thank you for the post and I think you are very well-versed in Chinese political system.

I was wondering of you could further elaborate on those traditional Chinese political theories? Can you name a few? I saw a book about Constitutional Confucianism by a Chinese scholar -- could not read yet.

What would you about alternative indigenous theories?

Therefore, a liberal one party system is more stable and easier to evolve.

I guess people would argue that Liberalist Theory is originated in the West (Europe), as well.

Of course one may bring up variant (or traces) of liberalism or socialism that have been applied throughout China's deep history.

 

[tranquilium]

I understand all those communist theory since I have been brainwashed since elementary school by one "ideology," by one political theory instead of being taught modern theories and even our Confucianism. We were born in China, but we were forced to learn only one theory created by a Jew in Germany hundred years ago as absolute truth? Gee. I guess Karl Marx is God of human thinking. This totalitarian hijacking of free thinking is unprecedented in Chinese history.

I am also averse to the class struggle crap and class warfare, etc etc, that are integral part of communism and "Marxism." This class warfare crap creates internal conflict, a sense of insecurity among the rich, or even the middle class. Even if the class warfare wont happen again, but as long as the party still holds those ideologies, those fears hang over people's head like Damocles sword. This fear is part of reasons why rich Chinese flee China, taking with them tons of capital that should be invested in China. You can tell even now some average Chinese still think they are entitled to other people's wealth, they hate rich people, they hate people more successful than them. Those hatred can partly be attributed to the communist theory that only humans can create wealth and rich people exploit other people blah blah, etc, etc. crap We have to objectively look at the situation if we really wish China good.

The reason why I will support one party system is because the current system has its historical basis and can be easily modified to fit with traditional Chinese political theories. It's extremely hard to create a multi-party democracy since a big country with no such tradition will take too much effort and its result is not guaranteed, i.e. a possible collapse of the whole country. Therefore, a liberal one party system is more stable and easier to evolve. I recommend you read a book written by Qian Mu. Of course, he was educated in Republic of China era, and a traditional Chinese scholar, but I think some of his works are thought provoking.

Well, to be fair, I went to school in both China and US. While the Chinese school only covered representatives communism, US school only covers elective democracy. I wouldn't call it brainwashing because it is perfectly understandable that your country's system take priority over the other country's system.

On the topic of fear and hate, I really have to ask a question. So if there is so much supposed fear and hatred, did these "haters" actually attacked the rich? Of course, not. People can be envious, people can be greedy, people can be angry, people can be lustful, people can be prideful, people can be lazy and of course, people can be gluttonous. We are only human. Just because we have these flaws that are common to all humanity, that doesn't mean we can't at the same time be kind, charitable, patient, chaste, humble, diligent and of course, temperate. People are not saints, but they are certainly not evil incarnate either.

On the topic of some rich people leaving China, all I really have to say is that things happen. People sometimes will go look for greener pastures and believes they can find something new for themselves. It is nothing to fuss over. Just like there are people leaving China, there are also people coming into China and as China continues its development, more and more will come and look for opportunities.

 

[Jlaw]

Well, to be fair, I went to school in both China and US. While the Chinese school only covered representatives communism, US school only covers elective democracy. I wouldn't call it brainwashing because it is perfectly understandable that your country's system take priority over the other country's system.

On the topic of fear and hate, I really have to ask a question. So if there is so much supposed fear and hatred, did these "haters" actually attacked the rich? Of course, not. People can be envious, people can be greedy, people can be angry, people can be lustful, people can be prideful, people can be lazy and of course, people can be gluttonous. We are only human. Just because we have these flaws that are common to all humanity, that doesn't mean we can't at the same time be kind, charitable, patient, chaste, humble, diligent and of course, temperate. People are not saints, but they are certainly not evil incarnate either.

On the topic of some rich people leaving China, all I really have to say is that things happen. People sometimes will go look for greener pastures and believes they can find something new for themselves. It is nothing to fuss over. Just like there are people leaving China, there are also people coming into China and as China continues its development, more and more will come and look for opportunities.

I think wealthy people are hated in China by poor people moreso than in developed countries. The blame is on the wealthy people for boasting too much and showing off excesively. Remember a son of a mayor in China who boasted his father is Li xxxx and he's above the law and can't be prosecuted. Another story was a woman named Guo, who was using donated money to buy herself a sports car.

[quote="
I guess people would argue that Liberalist Theory is originated in the West (Europe), as well.

Of course one may bring up variant (or traces) of liberalism or socialism that have been applied throughout China's deep history.[/quote]
The liberalsim of the Song dynasty destroyed its dynasty. The commoners lived well, free health care, etc. It was the best time to be a commoner. Let's not revert back to that again because we all know what happened after that.

Western Europe is heading to the direction as the later Song dynasty.
@TaiShang

 

[Zsari]

I see the truth of your words, but it is also the issue that I must continue to question. The Party's legitimacy doesn't derive from its institutions or structures, it derives from its competence and ability to provide growth (wealth, jobs) to the people. When that growth slows or stops, the Party will be severely tested. We have not approached that point in its current incarnation, but Mao's abject failures in the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution led to the deaths of millions--who knows how China would have ended up if he had been able to rule so incompetently for another few years?

At the same time, America is falling into dysfunction for exactly the same reason. The system worked because it delivered to the people a steadily rising standard of living. Now that the standard of living has stagnated, the people are losing faith in the system, and polls consistently show trust in American politicians in the single digits. The question becomes whether the American people trust the institutions enough to wait for competent politicians to arrive, or will we have a social breakdown? Americans feel they have some influence through the ballot box, at least, but if they had no say whatsoever, as is the case in China, the situation could deteriorate rapidly. If I'm not mistaken, that's essentially what happened every time China fell into upheaval in the past: a corrupt and ineffective Mandarin class was essentially overthrown. If Americans fail to elect good politicians, we blame the politicians, but we remember our own responsibility in the matter. Will Chinese citizens be as forgiving at the first signs of failure?

I think more and more Americans are begining to realize that regardless of who they elect to office, the system in place is there to maintain the status quote where gridlock and inaction is inherent.

I think wealthy people are hated in China by poor people moreso than in developed countries. The blame is on the wealthy people for boasting too much and showing off excesively. Remember a son of a mayor in China who boasted his father is Li xxxx and he's above the law and can't be prosecuted. Another story was a woman named Guo, who was using donated money to buy herself a sports car.

Part of it is the newly wealthy are boastful, another part is that the rise of the wealthy are too recent and too quick a phenomenon that the classes are not well segregated.

 

[+4vsgorillas-Apebane]

Gotta love the title of this thread. It's Shakespearean and caught my attention.

How is it even Shakespearean?

Dickensian perhaps?

 

[Aepsilons]

How is it even Shakespearean?

Dickensian perhaps?

It has a flare of Romeo and Juliet in it, my friend. Finding balance with the Capulets and the Montagues...

 

[+4vsgorillas-Apebane]

It has a flare of Romeo and Juliet in it, my friend. Finding balance with the Capulets and the Montagues...

I still dont see it.

A tale of two cities on the other hand....

 

[Aepsilons]

I still dont see it.

A tale of two cities on the other hand....

I agree, i agree.

 

[tranquilium]

I think wealthy people are hated in China by poor people moreso than in developed countries. The blame is on the wealthy people for boasting too much and showing off excesively. Remember a son of a mayor in China who boasted his father is Li xxxx and he's above the law and can't be prosecuted. Another story was a woman named Guo, who was using donated money to buy herself a sports car.

The supposed story on (child of) Li Gang has been debunked.
辟谣"李刚门"的三重反思
Essentially, the kid is in a panic mode and his original word is that "My dad is Li Gang. Please don't tell my dad (that I did that)." Pretty understandable reaction for someone who accidentally run someone over.

Li Gang's story is actually a rather point. Li Gang's child's original words, when put into the original context, is nothing out of ordinary. It is a tragic accident, but really not much beyond that, but because it happened to someone who is perceived to be privileged, suddenly it becomes big news. In fact, it received so much coverage that in the frenzy, people started to twist fact just to fit their imagination.

Is this a unique feature of modern Chinese society? Of course not. Similar stories can be found throughout the history. For example, there are plenty of stories on ancient peasants believing that the emperor's toilet is made of pure gold. Zixin (子辛／商纣王）, one of the earliest Chinese kings of the Shang dynasty, was commonly known as a corrupted ruler whose tyranny and lust knows no bounds which was commonly blamed for the fall of Shang dynasty. However, there is nothing in Zhou dynasty's record that support these accusation. In fact, the first individual that claimed such is Xunzi (荀子) who was born 700 years after Zixin's days. This is just one of the instances where people let imagination take over actual facts. Of course, this phenomenon is also by no means limited to the Chinese. For example, there is the popular belief that Nero burned down Rome in order to make space for his palace and played fiddle while watching Rome burning down, but according to Tacitus (and supported by modern historians), Nero isn't even in Rome at the time and the fire started some distance away from where the palace would be built and Nero have to salvage part of his own palace because it was damaged by the fire.

 

[tranquilium]

I see the truth of your words, but it is also the issue that I must continue to question. The Party's legitimacy doesn't derive from its institutions or structures, it derives from its competence and ability to provide growth (wealth, jobs) to the people. When that growth slows or stops, the Party will be severely tested. We have not approached that point in its current incarnation, but Mao's abject failures in the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution led to the deaths of millions--who knows how China would have ended up if he had been able to rule so incompetently for another few years?

At the same time, America is falling into dysfunction for exactly the same reason. The system worked because it delivered to the people a steadily rising standard of living. Now that the standard of living has stagnated, the people are losing faith in the system, and polls consistently show trust in American politicians in the single digits. The question becomes whether the American people trust the institutions enough to wait for competent politicians to arrive, or will we have a social breakdown? Americans feel they have some influence through the ballot box, at least, but if they had no say whatsoever, as is the case in China, the situation could deteriorate rapidly. If I'm not mistaken, that's essentially what happened every time China fell into upheaval in the past: a corrupt and ineffective Mandarin class was essentially overthrown. If Americans fail to elect good politicians, we blame the politicians, but we remember our own responsibility in the matter. Will Chinese citizens be as forgiving at the first signs of failure?

Well, there is hardly a guarantee that a nation will prosper. The lesser ones can still fail despite their best efforts due to outside influence. The larger nations have better control of their future through their own efforts, but it is still not a guarantee. You are right on that the legitimacy of the Chinese government doesn't comes from institution or structure, but through its competence and ability to run the country well. In my opinion, this is a good thing. This means the top priority of the Chinese government is to remain competent and run the nation well, instead of concentrating their effort on winning the next votes. Would their best effort fail eventually? Possibly, but if feudal empires can last 200-300 years, a modern government can easily last two or three times of that length and even if it is just 500 years, it would have already been a very good run, wouldn't you think so?

I think key thing that sets Chinese government apart from many other nations is that the Chinese government are capable of admitting that there are flaws in their system and actively working to correct the flaws.

 

[TaiShang]

The liberalsim of the Song dynasty destroyed its dynasty. The commoners lived well, free health care, etc. It was the best time to be a commoner. Let's not revert back to that again because we all know what happened after that.

Western Europe is heading to the direction as the later Song dynasty.

Hence the importance of remaining historically contingent. There is no sacred ideology and no one-size-fits-all ideology. Marx's own thoughts have been revised so many times but people still calls it Marxian. Even Marxist theorists separate the young, philosopher Marx from the old, economistic-reductionist-determinist Marx. Human being does not remain the same, which is good, and which is what separates theory from dogma; hence, nations, they do not remain the same. History tends to rhyme because of culture but any attempt to freeze it will backfire.

No question, Chinese model as it stands today works for China very well. But it will not work for others if it is adopted word by word by others. That's why I believe China's system is not exportable.

Meta-narrative is for the fools and US leadership has recently catered too much to the fools with such meta-narratives of democracy and development. ISIS may not be an exclusive US-monster, but, who can deny the fact that the conjecture has been laid out by the US policy?

I think key thing that sets Chinese government apart from many other nations is that the Chinese government are capable of admitting that there are flaws in their system and actively working to correct the flaws.

Indeed. Just think about all the fuss, bickering and partizanship over Obamacare. Very unhealthy and inefficient process for a health initiative. If there is a Republican come 2016, won't he/she amend it dramatically? How can we know that this would be done out of pure pragmatist reasons if what moves the voters is a bitter anti-Obamacare campaign?

 

[Jlaw]

Hence the importance of remaining historically contingent. There is no sacred ideology and no one-size-fits-all ideology. Marx's own thoughts have been revised so many times but people still calls it Marxian. Even Marxist theorists separate the young, philosopher Marx from the old, economistic-reductionist-determinist Marx. Human being does not remain the same, which is good, and which is what separates theory from dogma; hence, nations, they do not remain the same. History tends to rhyme because of culture but any attempt to freeze it will backfire.

No question, Chinese model as it stands today works for China very well. But it will not work for others if it is adopted word by word by others. That's why I believe China's system is not exportable.

Meta-narrative is for the fools and US leadership has recently catered too much to the fools with such meta-narratives of democracy and development. ISIS may not be an exclusive US-monster, but, who can deny the fact that the conjecture has been laid out by the US policy?



Indeed. Just think about all the fuss, bickering and partizanship over Obamacare. Very unhealthy and inefficient process for a health initiative. If there is a Republican come 2016, won't he/she amend it dramatically? How can we know that this would be done out of pure pragmatist reasons if what moves the voters is a bitter anti-Obamacare campaign?

True. I don't know why India 's Modi is trying to copy the China model for their economic development. When the west invested in China, they were thinking to exploit the market, not actually set up factories there. The old saying was,"if only I can sell one tooth brush for $1 to 1 billion Chinese!".
Chinese people were a bit smarter and had the proper infrastructure, logistics and skilled workers with a lower wage that tempted the foreign investors with very little choice other than to have everything made in China.
I understand China is trying to tap into India market. I'm still not convince that building infrastructure and helping them with manufacturing is wise. After all, two tigers cannot share one mountain.
I hope in 40 years, my children or grandchildren won't be fighting a more advance Indian country with a bigger population. If so, we can blame today's regime for that.