For China the end of the Communist party is nigh — but in name only

[FairAndUnbiased]

Sure, if the party members believe the changes are appropriate.

That was a lame attempt to distract from the reality that the CCP is more of the contradiction between party philosophy and practice than anything you can try to make of American politics.

I'm pretty sure that conservatives (and some liberals) consider Obama a demogauge and the liberals (as well as Rand Paul conservatives) consider the current Republican candidates to either be robbers or aiding robbers.

On the other hand I see little contradiction between CPC theory and practice - the primary means of production (land, labor, capital) are mostly publically owned with all land being state owned, price of labor being set with minimum wages, and state owned banks directing capital.

 

[Aepsilons]

Change the Democratic Party to Demagogue Party and Republican Party to Robber Party - after all, just a change of name right? Otherwise ppl will start noting the contradiction between practice and theory.

lol.

Don't get your dander too high !

It is puzzling that the CCP should cling to its name given widespread antipathy in China to communism. Even party members distrust Marxism, and most students dread their compulsory Marxism classes. The very idea of a party that represents part of the population also has negative overtones. Confucius criticised quarrelsome people who associate along party lines, and surveys in China show a preference for “guardianship discourse” with elites responsible for the good of the whole society.

Profound.

 

[tranquilium]

I once again repeat - in civilized democratic nations with an independent judiciary, mass murderers can't be legally elected. Is English a problem? Sadly, I can't post in Mandarin or Japanese or Mongolian.

Yes, we are quite happy to adopt the Western form of democracy just as your Communist Party adopted another Western form of Government.



Actually it does. Sometimes, it doesn't but more often than not the choices of a population are accurately reflected. This is both a blessing and a curse. A curse because if often leads to coalition Governments which are difficult to run. It also throws up Presidents like Obama.

The very basis of the problem is assuming the choice of a population is the right choice. The African Americans voting for Obama without considering actual policy is a more dramatic case of it, but at the root lay with the fact that the more popular choice is by no means the right choice.

The elective system currently used in western countries can be traced to its medieval origins. Where the king requires the support of powerful local lords in order to function. A particular case of this is the Holy Roman Empire. England is another case where the king sometimes actually did not have its own land and entirely depending on its vassal. Thus, the opinion of these vassal or "votes" decides whether the government functions or not. This is a case where a functional government is preferably, even if the leader is not the most qualified individual. (In fact, it is preferably for the local lords to have a weak king) When the middle age ended and feudal nobility declines, the same treatment is simply transferred to alternative groups with sufficient power. Hence why when the puritans crossed the ocean and got to America, the voting right is limited to white, male and wealthy land owner. The later American political system is simply an extension of the old system with the poor, women and other races gaining more power at various points of history.

Of course, the Chinese system can trace its root to ancient time as well. I always said that a country's political system follows its history tradition. Absolute monarchies such as the Chinese system is not immune to things like personal favoritism or the need to keep government running, but when hereditary rule fell out of favor, the favoritism part is curbed and meritocracy becomes a larger part than previous.

In democratic system of government, the elected leaders are those who can talk and not necessarily who can manage the country well.

Exactly. Which kinda defeats the purpose of being a leader.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

I strongly recommend the OP to stop posting the anti-China garbage like this.

Otherwise, you will be exiled by the Chinese community in PDF.

 

[tranquilium]

Profound.

There are ideology conflicts in CCP in its early days, but eventually, the idea that won out is that Chinese system must be the one most suitable for Chinese needs. Karl Marx puts forth an interesting and influential theory, but he is not even a politician let alone one that is experienced with Chinese culture.

It is strange for people to dug up the original Marxism theory and point towards its contradiction with the modern practices and proclaim it is some sort of problem. I thought should be obvious that after two hundreds years lots of things can change. Social conditions, technological advances all spark changes in the way a nation operates. When the Chinese cites Marxism, it is used as a historical reference, instead of some sorta of religious code that must be followed without question. For your information, when citing historical development of the modern day political theory, the citation is Marxism, Leninism, Mao's thoughts and Deng's theory. These represents the gradual evolution of political theory in China. It has changed in the past and it will continue to change in the future.

Chinese adopted certain principles from communism because it is useful. We are not in any kind of obligation to follow everything written by someone else.

I strongly recommend the OP to stop posting the anti-China garbage like this.

Otherwise, you will be exiled by the Chinese community in PDF.

It is a rather thinly veiled attempt of convincing someone to abandon their identity and if someone can abandon their identity, it is much easier for them to abandon other things as well.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

There are ideology conflicts in CCP in its early days, but eventually, the idea that won out is that Chinese system must be the one most suitable for Chinese needs. Karl Marx puts forth an interesting and influential theory, but he is not even politician let alone one that is experienced with Chinese culture.

It is strange for people to dug up the original Marxism theory and point towards its contradiction with the modern practices and proclaim it is some sort of problem. I thought should be obvious that after two hundreds lots of things can change. Social conditions, technological advances all spark changes in the way a nation operates. When the Chinese cites Marxism, it is used as a historical reference, instead of some sorta of religious code that must be followed without question. For your information, when citing historical development of the modern day political theory, the citation is Marxism, Leninism, Mao's thoughts and Deng's theory. These represents the gradual evolution of political theory in China. It has changed in the past and it will continue to change in the future.

Chinese adopted certain principles from communism because it is useful. We are not in any kind of obligation to follow everything written by someone else.



It is a rather thinly veiled attempt of convincing someone to abandon their identity and if someone can abandon their identity, it is much easier for them to abandon other things as well.

It would be like saying US is a pure socialist nation because they deviate from Adam Smith's "On the Wealth of Nations" and instead have things like ugh, income taxes...

 

[Aepsilons]

There are ideology conflicts in CCP in its early days, but eventually, the idea that won out is that Chinese system must be the one most suitable for Chinese needs. Karl Marx puts forth an interesting and influential theory, but he is not even politician let alone one that is experienced with Chinese culture.

It is strange for people to dug up the original Marxism theory and point towards its contradiction with the modern practices and proclaim it is some sort of problem. I thought should be obvious that after two hundreds lots of things can change. Social conditions, technological advances all spark changes in the way a nation operates. When the Chinese cites Marxism, it is used as a historical reference, instead of some sorta of religious code that must be followed without question. For your information, when citing historical development of the modern day political theory, the citation is Marxism, Leninism, Mao's thoughts and Deng's theory. These represents the gradual evolution of political theory in China. It has changed in the past and it will continue to change in the future.

Chinese adopted certain principles from communism because it is useful. We are not in any kind of obligation to follow everything written by someone else.

Very well written and conceptualized , @tranquilium !

 

[tranquilium]

It would be like saying US is a pure socialist nation because they deviate from Adam Smith's "On the Wealth of Nations" and instead have things like ugh, income taxes...

Times change. Most of nation today operates differently than how they operate half a century ago.

One thing I would like to note is that human political systems are subject to constant evolution and the present day system will eventually become out-dated, but eventually adapting new system more compatible with the changing environment is by no means the same thing with jumping to an old system that is incompatible with the nation. USSR's dissolution is a good example of this.

 

[Aepsilons]

Times change. Most of nation today operates differently than how they operate half a century ago.

One thing I would like to note is that human political systems are subject to constant evolution and the present day system will eventually become out-dated, but eventually adapting new system more compatible with the changing environment is by no means the same thing with jumping to an old system that is incompatible with the nation. USSR's dissolution is a good example of this.

There's a term for this, my friend: Political Utilitarianism.

Glad to see you're a believer in this as well.

I strongly recommend the OP to stop posting the anti-China garbage like this.

Otherwise, you will be exiled by the Chinese community in PDF.

Exiled from the ' PDF Chinese community' ? I didn't know there was such an elitist group. LOL.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Daniel Bell is just one of those foreigners who only deals with the anglophone circle of Chinese social science and business elites. He does not know what the people want and he doesn't deal with real science. Remember - all social science is political. There is no social science that is not political because by definition, social science studies humans, and politics is the science of controlling other humans.

He is just a political partisan pushing his agenda.

See, what I noticed about the westerners is that they think that 1.) the Chinese system is like that, or should emulate, that of Singapore's and 2.) this is desireable, good, and what Chinese do better than the west.

I totally disagree. The various directorates, bureaucratic offices and underground deep states of the West (this time including former USSR) are incredibly powerful, wield great institutional strength, and are a source of institutional memory. There's too many ad-hoc, short lived government offices in China today, tied to "efficiency" and "meritocracy" but in reality, are not nearly as good for national power as a whole, as are the long lived directorates and bureaucracies of the West. They are unable to command loyalty to specific people and institutions, only an idea. Here's the other part of his agenda - you get rid of this idea, and then where is the loyalty to?

For an example of the horrid weakness of the "meritocratic Chinese system":

Lee Kuan Yew stayed on for years as a "Minister Mentor", a position created for him alone and abolished when he died, acting as regent for his son in a way no different than an emperor or king!

How the fk is this even happening in the modern day?? You think that Singapore can remain stable if the Lee family is desposed? Heh, what do you think is gonna happen to North Korea is the Kim family is desposed? I thought so.

Meritocracy, or how it is practiced in reality, is nothing more than the tyranny of aristocrats. In the long run it leads to reduced social mobility and the stagnation of social classes. Then the dynastic cycle begins. I am hoping that the PRC is the first government in Chinese history to break this cycle but if it goes down this dark path, then there is no hope anymore.

How is that different from the tyranny of cruel warlords or hereditary kings? It is still tyranny.

Daniel Bell is only partially right.

Yes, this event will be a turning point for China's political landscape.

However, he is completely wrong that China will take the same road as USSR just to abandon the communism.

This event will be a prelude to the rise of the Neo-Maoism, since most Chinese are getting tired of the liberalism crap that spewed by the Dengism since 30 years ago which led to the corruption, demoralization, etc.

The conservative Dengist like Xi Jinping will be forced to ally with the Neo-Maoists and to disown with the liberal Dengists.

The Maoism will take in charge again, and it is the Dengism will go to extinction.

And we should thank the West for indirectly doing this favor for us, and they have just awakened a sleeping lion.

 

[tranquilium]

There's a term for this, my friend: Political Utilitarianism.

Glad to see you're a believer in this as well.

Utilitarianism has some negativity associated to it, like end justifies the means. Fiction book writer loves to use it as a plot device as contrast to the hero's "pure" ideology.

Personally, I believes that those examples are rather gross misrepresentations. Utilitarianism by no means preclude people from taking long term well being of the society and civilization into consideration. For example, a believer of utilitarianism can take confirm stance for environmental protection, simply because it is better for the society as a whole in the long run.

Another plot device fiction writers like to use is that practicianor of utilitarianism is greedy and only interested in making quick profits where in the real world counterpart is perfectly willing to make self-sacrifice for because it leads to a better future.

 

[Aepsilons]

Utilitarianism has some negativity associated to it, like end justifies the means. Fiction book writer loves to use it as a plot device as contrast to the hero's "pure" ideology.

Personally, I believes that those examples are rather gross misrepresentations. Utilitarianism by no means preclude people from taking long term well being of the society and civilization into consideration. For example, a believer of utilitarianism can take confirm stance for environmental protection, simply because it is better for the society as a whole in the long run.

Another plot device fiction writers like to use is that practicianor of utilitarianism is greedy and only interested in making quick profits where in the real world counterpart is perfectly willing to make self-sacrifice for because it leads to a better future.

Indeed there are negative aspects of political utilitarianism and even in it being used in the legal positivism case. Be that as it may, the utilitarian view enables politicians who hold such a view to think and practice beyond the notion of party lines or for that matter transcend the partisanship that characterizes bicameral legislatures. Some strengths of the political utilitarian view include the concept of advocacy through self sacrifice, the concept of honesty and justice (which is a moralistic point), the issue of equality for all and lack of special considerations, the focal point of positive effects on society and focusing policies to steer towards that goal. For all intents and purposes, one can even argue that to an extent the CCP already implements and upholds some basic concepts of utilitarianism, in fact the very ideology to which the CCP is based upon, Marxism, shares some similar views as Political Utilitarianism.

 

[tranquilium]

Indeed there are negative aspects of political utilitarianism and even in it being used in the legal positivism case. Be that as it may, the utilitarian view enables politicians who hold such a view to think and practice beyond the notion of party lines or for that matter transcend the partisanship that characterizes bicameral legislatures. Some strengths of the political utilitarian view include the concept of advocacy through self sacrifice, the concept of honesty and justice (which is a moralistic point), the issue of equality for all and lack of special considerations, the focal point of positive effects on society and focusing policies to steer towards that goal. For all intents and purposes, one can even argue that to an extent the CCP already implements and upholds some basic concepts of utilitarianism, in fact the very ideology to which the CCP is based upon, Marxism, shares some similar views as Political Utilitarianism.

Unfortunately, things are not always clear cut. Take the example of the conflict sometimes occur between upholding justice and current well-being of the society. The decision maker is actually required to compare the merit and utility of things difficult to quantify and evaluation (such as the impact of loss of integrity on social morale and morality by compromising) and things to complex to predict (such as impact of the chain reaction of certain events to the social stability). I don't envy the person or entity that has to make that decision.

 

[jamahir]

or for that matter transcend the partisanship that characterizes bicameral legislatures.

sometimes you write in such complicated college language.

we should strive to simplify everything to the maximum extent possible, be that political system or be that technology.

 

[Aepsilons]

Unfortunately, things are not always clear cut. Take the example of the conflict sometimes occur between upholding justice and current well-being of the society. The decision maker is actually required to compare the merit and utility of things difficult to quantify and evaluation (such as the impact of loss of integrity on social morale and morality by compromising) and things to complex to predict (such as impact of the chain reaction of certain events to the social stability). I don't envy the person or entity that has to make that decision.

That is actually a very good point you make , and it is indeed a hard decision that our elected officials are forced to make. That is part of the responsibilities of those in power, they were chosen from amongst the people to represent and be the voice of the people. To make decisions that are to benefit the people. In times like that I like to see that decision making process by members of the legislature, judiciary do so according to their moral conscience. In the end, one has to always keep in mind the cost - benefits vantage point; does a certain policy pose greater benefit for society than cost, or will a policy cost more than it gives benefit? That is part of the political dialectic paradigm.

sometimes you write in such complicated college language.

As an academic, i can't help it, bhai jaan @jamahir