China has its own horrors to atone for

[Gufi]

What the Hell man?

It is your fault to take American journalism seriously, these are the same people who can not stop killing and stereotyping on the colour of ones skin .

Take pride in your victories, mourn your dead and do not expect anything from any nation. The road forward for China is very long and there will be hurdles but do not be dismayed or even give importance to those who use the pen as a weapon to malign.

 

[+4vsgorillas-Apebane]

It is your fault to take American journalism seriously, these are the same people who can not stop killing and stereotyping on the colour of ones skin .

Take pride in your victories, mourn your dead and do not expect anything from any nation. The road forward for China is very long and there will be hurdles but do not be dismayed or even give importance to those who use the pen as a weapon to malign.

Well said bro!

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

The level of economy is the most important role to keep the politics stable. If you are at the level of Myanmar with the similar population as Britain, the situation will be very different.
This phenomenon of reverse nationalism only appear among the immature teenagers, and when they become maturer, they always become more patriotic. The reason of the phenomenon's appearing is that China is still not the most developed country, so someone may be not enough confident and suspect the justification of our political system(just like the phenomenon appearing in US before WWII). Other reason is the your western ideological infiltration, etc.
But CCP has handled the key to keep the country stable, it is the high employment rate and level of income. With the negative experience of democratization from Hong Kong and Taiwan, our people are enough sober. When China become a developed country once, there will be no this phenomenon. Do you agree with me, sir @LeveragedBuyout

Apologies for not responding sooner--I never received a notification that you mentioned me in this thread.

I have to parse your statement to address several points.

The level of economy is the most important role to keep the politics stable. If you are at the level of Myanmar with the similar population as Britain, the situation will be very different.
This phenomenon of reverse nationalism only appear among the immature teenagers, and when they become maturer, they always become more patriotic. The reason of the phenomenon's appearing is that China is still not the most developed country, so someone may be not enough confident and suspect the justification of our political system(just like the phenomenon appearing in US before WWII).

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

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

Needless to say, one of these perspectives is wrong, and as the saying goes, actions speak louder than words.

Other reason is the your western ideological infiltration, etc.

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

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

But CCP has handled the key to keep the country stable, it is the high employment rate and level of income. With the negative experience of democratization from Hong Kong and Taiwan, our people are enough sober.

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

Emerging and Frontier Markets: Economic and Geopolitical Analysis

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

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

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

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

When China become a developed country once, there will be no this phenomenon.

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

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

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

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

 

[Keel]

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

It is unfair to compare much smaller and developed territorites' GDP per cap with PRC with 1.3 billion people which is still developing. It makes a lot of difference when the eastern provinces are singled out for comparison, Compare it with India if you like which is a lot similar in population size and recent history

We all know how delusional Chinese in here are, they did not even look at themselves in mirror because they're too busy masturbating, making themselves feel good. It is totally ok for them to speak and talk within China border and among others but as soon as they stick their heads out of the world they will realize nobody think like them.

Shut up and go away please if you have nothing to contribute vietcong

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

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

It is unfair to compare much smaller and developed territorites' GDP per cap with PRC with 1.3 billion people which is still developing. It makes a lot of difference when the eastern provinces are singled out for comparison, Compare it with India if you like which is a lot similar in population size and recent history

China's size is both its strength and its weakness. It has historically given China a great deal of heft in world affairs, and provides China with a kind of gravitational pull towards its neighboring satellites, which encourage integration into China's bloc. On the other hand, the sheer size of China makes it more difficult to control as a unitary state, which explains the tendency towards totalitarianism.

I didn't intend to compare China and Taiwan/HK in order to condemn China, but rather to show that it's not an easy conclusion to make that the CCP is uniquely skilled or qualified in growing the Chinese economy. There are other models. While India's model has largely been a failure, the US model has largely been a success. Perhaps China might look to borrow the American model of federalism (with Chinese characteristics) to pursue its next stage of growth. I agree that the Indian model would not be appropriate (as it has not been appropriate for India itself).

 

[Keel]

China's size is both its strength and its weakness. It has historically given China a great deal of heft in world affairs, and provides China with a kind of gravitational pull towards its neighboring satellites, which encourage integration into China's bloc. On the other hand, the sheer size of China makes it more difficult to control as a unitary state, which explains the tendency towards totalitarianism.

I didn't intend to compare China and Taiwan/HK in order to condemn China, but rather to show that it's not an easy conclusion to make that the CCP is uniquely skilled or qualified in growing the Chinese economy. There are other models. While India's model has largely been a failure, the US model has largely been a success. Perhaps China might look to borrow the American model of federalism (with Chinese characteristics) to pursue its next stage of growth. I agree that the Indian model would not be appropriate (as it has not been appropriate for India itself).

You can only compare the success / failure of one model against another within a time-frame
USA is only a quarter of the size of China albeit it is more advanced in many aspects
Also during WW2, it's continent was not destroyed by the war so it didnt take much to rebuild your economy

Why I said India is more appropriate for comparision is because they are similar in population size, and history:
1. at about the same time the new regime was born respectively
2. they have had their period of colonialization / exploitation; we had our external invasions and civil war

 

[Genesis]

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

The European situation is very different, at least to me, with the creation of the US, a combination of all Western Europeans, US has effectively rendered Europe client states, without actually being client states.

The fact the US is shocked at the UK and rest of Europe joining a stupid bank by China really says it all.

Europeans recognized the power of the US and the impossibility of ever matching it, thus discarding nationalism is much like when I played against college players and they totally destroyed me. You can't say I'm a great person for not pursuing a career as a NBA player, I didn't because I suck.

Due to China's history, race, and other facts including size, and more, we won't ever accept being under the US the same way Western Europe has accepted.

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

Needless to say, one of these perspectives is wrong, and as the saying goes, actions speak louder than words.

This is a military forum, it's not difficult to see the advancements China has made there, Japan has been surpassed, though you can still argue if you like, ASEAN together can do no more than annoy us.

China is like D Howard, Howard can dominate and do a 20/10 with essentially no moves, Chian is the same, standing at 6'11 and 230 pounds, who can out jump us, who can out muscle us. We are not that good, but compare to the mortals, our natural ability is good enough.

Can we be Shaq? Remains to be seen.

China spends little on defence, but our little is a lot to others, but we don't have the urban to rural ratio, we don't have the minimum income, and we don't have many things the developed world has. It just so happens many except US, in the developed world are Darko Milicic, and even without being Shaq we can completely annihilate him.

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

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

It's all perspective, as many have mentioned, there's no love between China and the US, yet we are manufacturing what use to be in the US. It's competitiveness that's changed. Yet, a lot of Americans think we stole jobs from America.

Same thing here, we both have our own narrative, only when we do it, it's propaganda, but when other's do it, it's the truth.

Another example is South China Sea, did you know even now, US and her allie's media can't even agree if making new islands are illegal or claiming territory is illegal. If you want to find narrative that makes no sense, it happens everywhere, people don't need to make sense when an agenda is all they need.

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

Emerging and Frontier Markets: Economic and Geopolitical Analysis

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

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

Fast forward 2015, we surpassed Botswana, within striking distance of Brazil, more than doubled Indonesia, and greatly reduced the distance between Japan and us by more than 5 times.

CCP isn't unique, but it certainly has done something that's at least not done by a country of similar size and on such a scale. That in itself may have made it unique. Botswana has only 2 million people, that can be difficult or easy to handle depending on the government, as long as their government isn't a complete goon, they should be able to advance quite easily.

Is CCP necessary? Not necessarily, but it certainly didn't hurt, we don't know what could have happened, we know what did happen, and this is what happened. For all intents and purposes, CCP is best thing to happen to China since the founding of the previous dynasty.

We must look at things as they are, of the top 10 most populous countries, Taiwan may have had KMT, but they didn't have a country to match with China. Winning every game in little league doesn't make that team better than the Phillis. Japan and US are already developed, Russia and Brazil had a far greater starting point, while we started the lowest in the top 10 in per capita income by 1970s,

Today other we are closing in on Russia and Brazil while surpassing all others baring US and Japan, who has started as advance economies.

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

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

Political Repression, Political Liberalization in China

I have argued previously that what is repression and basic rights? Is voting a basic right? Than by all measures even Venezuela is better than China, would you want to live there rather than China?

Voting is just the process, does it matter if I shoot the 3 ball or dunk it like Shaq? What ever gets the job done is good.

I think americans place too much importance on democracy while ignoring the many advantages America has, China on the other hand is too focus on our advantages that we are neglecting some methods that go against our current system.

In the end, Chinese wanted more than 1 child now that we have money? We can. Chinese wants social mobility? We allow it, Chinese wants strippers and Bentleys we make it rain.

Would you place everything that China has done on the CCP in terms of social progress? Or would you place at least some on the common Chinese? Why would you think Chinese can't determine our destiny? Because we don't vote?

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Would you place everything that China has done on the CCP in terms of social progress? Or would you place at least some on the common Chinese? Why would you think Chinese can't determine our destiny? Because we don't vote?

The CCP has fostered tremendous social progress for the Chinese people, but as we've already agreed, it's unclear that the CCP was necessary in order to create that social progress. I prefer to credit the Chinese people themselves, but that's a different discussion for a different time. The Chinese people cannot yet determine their destiny because they not only lack of voting rights, but also freedom of speech, freedom of religion, secure property rights, etc.

It only appears that the freedom to become wealthy is sufficient because China is not yet a wealthy society. Once societies pass a threshold of material wealth, however, other factors gain in importance. Among those other things is self-actualization, which is not possible if one is unable to influence the type of society in which one lives. The nature of the CCP's rule is such that the common citizen has zero ability to effect change in society.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

The CCP has fostered tremendous social progress for the Chinese people, but as we've already agreed, it's unclear that the CCP was necessary in order to create that social progress. I prefer to credit the Chinese people themselves, but that's a different discussion for a different time. The Chinese people cannot yet determine their destiny because they not only lack of voting rights, but also freedom of speech, freedom of religion, secure property rights, etc.

It only appears that the freedom to become wealthy is sufficient because China is not yet a wealthy society. Once societies pass a threshold of material wealth, however, other factors gain in importance. Among those other things is self-actualization, which is not possible if one is unable to influence the type of society in which one lives. The nature of the CCP's rule is such that the common citizen has zero ability to effect change in society.

the CPC may have not been necessary but there was the 37 year reign of the KMT to compare with, which was a total disaster and basically unbroken war, famine and hyperinflation. Taiwan started from a much higher base due to the KMT learning from their mistakes, relocation of gold reserves, foreign aid and unscratched infrastructure. also note this: the graph starts in 1961 and stops at 2005, while high growth didn't stop in 2005. it is actually ongoing, if you compare with Taiwan growth rates, which were universally lower. growth in many other countries on the list have never been as high as China's current growth rate thus picking 2005 as a cutoff is misleading due to outdated info.

the average American can vote but their influence on society these days is near zero compared to American institutions. this is no longer the 60s. peaceful protest in Ferguson and Baltimore, for instance, failed to change any state policies. another thing is that in America ppl like to say that anyone can become president, theoretically. well in China it is also true that theoretically anyone can become president. the CPC has open membership, it's not a hereditary organization, so i don't understand why you talk of it as an imposed government that has nothing to do with the average citizen. it's not a monarchy, there are 80million members and rising, 10% of the adult Chinese population.

 

[Genesis]

The CCP has fostered tremendous social progress for the Chinese people, but as we've already agreed, it's unclear that the CCP was necessary in order to create that social progress. I prefer to credit the Chinese people themselves, but that's a different discussion for a different time. The Chinese people cannot yet determine their destiny because they not only lack of voting rights, but also freedom of speech, freedom of religion, secure property rights, etc.

See that's the contradiction there, how can you credit the Chinese people for the social progress but then turn around and say Chinese people have no say. It's either or.

Is the CCP necessary? CCP is irrelevant, the Chinese nation is. This is another thing for Americans, too much focus on a CCP that doesn't even exist anymore. Like the HRE, the CCP is neither Chinese, nor communist nor a party.

Today's CCP is based almost completely on Western ideologies and technologies with inspirations from our systems of old. Our CCP is certainly not communist as it never was, and party? The party point only matters if there is a second party to contend, even if only inname like Singapore, or at least some reason or another to exclude anyone that's Chinese, there isn't, so it's just the government.

Lastly, voting rights, and secure property rights are a system problem, the type of freedom of speech and religion, you are talking about also falls in the political category and not social category.

China is still reforming and experimenting, and our way is showing result, thus faulting us for not voting and not having that type of property rights, which in other countries have resulted in stagnated infrastructure and populous policies that bankrupts the country and benefits no one but the few, is like faulting basketball for the failure to include kicking and punching.

Chinese can freely practice religion, not cults, what Islamic extremism and Nazism and whatever other cult that killed people are to you guys are what Islamic extremism, Falungong are to us.

It's the gun debate, we like security, you like freedom, in exchange you get shot more and we can't have guns. It's a preference thing.

Can we do better? Sure, but you don't face an Islamic insurgency, or a cult that's telling people to burn themselves in the heart of central power. Crackdown and the Last straw, you want to take a guess which happened first? The chicken or the egg?

It only appears that the freedom to become wealthy is sufficient because China is not yet a wealthy society. Once societies pass a threshold of material wealth, however, other factors gain in importance. Among those other things is self-actualization, which is not possible if one is unable to influence the type of society in which one lives. The nature of the CCP's rule is such that the common citizen has zero ability to effect change in society.

Again refer to above, the only thing to me is just that we don't vote, are you really going to fault China for not using the bat and glove in a tennis match?

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

in the US to become president, theoretically all you have to do is win a national election. well in China all you have to do is become a CPC member and be elected by the central committee. it's all the steps in between for both countries that are hard.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

See that's the contradiction there, how can you credit the Chinese people for the social progress but then turn around and say Chinese people have no say. It's either or.

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

Today's CCP is based almost completely on Western ideologies and technologies with inspirations from our systems of old. Our CCP is certainly not communist as it never was, and party? The party point only matters if there is a second party to contend, even if only inname like Singapore, or at least some reason or another to exclude anyone that's Chinese, there isn't, so it's just the government.

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

Lastly, voting rights, and secure property rights are a system problem, the type of freedom of speech and religion, you are talking about also falls in the political category and not social category.

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

China is still reforming and experimenting, and our way is showing result, thus faulting us for not voting and not having that type of property rights, which in other countries have resulted in stagnated infrastructure and populous policies that bankrupts the country and benefits no one but the few, is like faulting basketball for the failure to include kicking and punching.

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

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

Chinese can freely practice religion, not cults, what Islamic extremism and Nazism and whatever other cult that killed people are to you guys are what Islamic extremism, Falungong are to us.

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

It's the gun debate, we like security, you like freedom, in exchange you get shot more and we can't have guns. It's a preference thing.

You have a good point there, but now we're talking extremes. Chinese citizens are not allowed guns, but murder still occurs in China. On the other side, gun rights are not unrestricted in the US, and vary state by state. I live in a state where getting a gun permit is extremely difficult, and getting a concealed carry permit is not possible for normal citizens. But murders happen in my state as well. There is a happy medium here, but I think the US is far closer to that medium than China is, and that's where I am trying to steer the conversation.

Can we do better? Sure, but you don't face an Islamic insurgency, or a cult that's telling people to burn themselves in the heart of central power. Crackdown and the Last straw, you want to take a guess which happened first? The chicken or the egg?

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

Again refer to above, the only thing to me is just that we don't vote, are you really going to fault China for not using the bat and glove in a tennis match?

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

 

[TaiShang]

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

Same with the USA people. They do not have any say on, say, which corporation to be bailed out and which ones to be let sink. It is the finance oligarchs.

US people have no say on which country to invade and which country to pull from. It is the senators who are previously board members (or, soon to be) to mercenary and arms companies.

They have no say whether NAFTA or TPP is good or bad for themselves. It is the business oligarchs.

US people prospered because of their rational government, same as the Chinese people, who prospered thanks to their government. Nations rise and fall mostly due to their governments/leadership.

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

That's a particular Euro-centric perspective, which is normal. Looking from here, the US system, too, looks very unsuitable for your purpose anymore.

The Chinese people cannot yet determine their destiny because they not only lack of voting rights, but also freedom of speech, freedom of religion, secure property rights, etc.

I do not see how the Blacks or Natives or others deciding on their destiny in the US more than the Chinese do in China.

Once societies pass a threshold of material wealth, however, other factors gain in importance. Among those other things is self-actualization, which is not possible if one is unable to influence the type of society in which one lives. The nature of the CCP's rule is such that the common citizen has zero ability to effect change in society.

That neoliberal premise is being trashed as we speak.

I would argue that Chinese people have more ability to affect a change in China than the US people in US. Look, how the US system is being fossilized, resistant to change and turning almost reactionary.

 

[Carlosa]

Apologies for not responding sooner--I never received a notification that you mentioned me in this thread.

I have to parse your statement to address several points.



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

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

Needless to say, one of these perspectives is wrong, and as the saying goes, actions speak louder than words.



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

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



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

Emerging and Frontier Markets: Economic and Geopolitical Analysis

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

Outstanding !!!!!!! (as always)

 

[Genesis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All empires fall, for good reason.

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

Who decides this in America? Voters?

You have a good point there, but now we're talking extremes. Chinese citizens are not allowed guns, but murder still occurs in China. On the other side, gun rights are not unrestricted in the US, and vary state by state. I live in a state where getting a gun permit is extremely difficult, and getting a concealed carry permit is not possible for normal citizens. But murders happen in my state as well. There is a happy medium here, but I think the US is far closer to that medium than China is, and that's where I am trying to steer the conversation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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