Eric X. Li: A tale of two political systems

[terranMarine]

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.

I share your sentiment, i think we should be wary of India because of the border conflict.

 

[Desert Fox]

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

I don't think any country, bar the early Bolshevik soviet Union of Lenin (to an extent), really practices the true form of Communism as envisioned by Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels.

 

[xesy]

I don't think any country, bar the early Bolshevik soviet Union of Lenin (to an extent), really practices the true form of Communism as envisioned by Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels.

Agree. The early CCCP was like a paradise for workers and farmers, who made up more than 90% of Soviet populations at that time. Leaders were voted from the workers and farmers themselves, untrained in politics but passionate with the new system. Too bad power corrupts people, even good men change when they have too much power in their hands.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

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?

This is where the potential flaw exists. Chinese bureaucrats are human, like everyone else. So far, so good, but there is no guarantee that they will always act in the best interests of China on the whole. We know that politicians in the US are short-sighted, but they are at least bound by the desires of the population; satisfy those desires, or do not get re-elected.

The restraining mechanism on the CCP is theoretical, because the likely scenario when the CCP stops satisfying the desires of the population is massive social unrest. I hope it doesn't come to that, but the accumulation of vast wealth among Party members shows me that they are not the altruistic technocrats that many portray them to be, and their interests are not always aligned with what is best for China.

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.

This reading of history is categorically incorrect. As far back as the 1970s, the US viewed China as an inexpensive manufacturing base for its own products, and China's market was far too small, and its people far too poor, to serve as a significant export market for the US.

 

[TaiShang]

I hope it doesn't come to that, but the accumulation of vast wealth among Party members shows me that they are not the altruistic technocrats that many portray them to be, and their interests are not always aligned with what is best for China.

It is interesting to know that world's top 16 richest politicians are overwhelmingly from the election-holding West.

I bet come top 50, the election-holding countries will top the list, assisted by oil-rich monarchs.

Michael Bloomberg - In Photos: The World's Richest Politicians - Forbes

In top 23, too, China does not necessarily beats the lot

World's Richest Politicians - Business Insider

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

It is interesting to know that world's top 16 richest politicians are overwhelmingly from the election-holding West.

I bet come top 50, the election-holding countries will top the list, assisted by oil-rich monarchs.

Michael Bloomberg - In Photos: The World's Richest Politicians - Forbes

In top 23, too, China does not necessarily beats the lot

World's Richest Politicians - Business Insider

I don't understand the relevance. I can't speak to the other countries, but the wealthy US politicians all made their money before becoming politicians. Chinese politicians, on the other hand...

Are China’s Politicians the Richest in the World? - The Wealth Report - WSJ

 

[terranMarine]

This is where the potential flaw exists. Chinese bureaucrats are human, like everyone else. So far, so good, but there is no guarantee that they will always act in the best interests of China on the whole. We know that politicians in the US are short-sighted, but they are at least bound by the desires of the population; satisfy those desires, or do not get re-elected.

The restraining mechanism on the CCP is theoretical, because the likely scenario when the CCP stops satisfying the desires of the population is massive social unrest. I hope it doesn't come to that, but the accumulation of vast wealth among Party members shows me that they are not the altruistic technocrats that many portray them to be, and their interests are not always aligned with what is best for China.

I don't think American politicians are that much different, during the election campaign many candidates will try to win votes so they make promises to win the hearts of the citizens. It does not guarantee they will stick to their ideology once they are in power. Western politicians can be bribed as well, they just call it lobby

Social unrest come and go, as long CCP can manage to lift more poor out of poverty despite rising inequality between the rich and the poor, the party can rest assured of maintaining in power. Therefor reforms are necessary, dealing with corrupt politicians who are abusing their power for selfish gains, more development in the rural area which is what are seeing in the western part of China. Since ancient times when the population was dissatisfied with the emperor (usually lack of food due to weather), he would be toppled down and a new ruler emerges. Because we have abandoned the Dynasty system it would be illogical to topple the whole Party system and replace it with another Party or switching to a Democratic style. As long Chinese economy can sustain its growth, the basic 4 layers of Maslow's piramid should be met for the majority of the population hence a coup is deem unlikely.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

I don't think American politicians are that much different, during the election campaign many candidates will try to win votes so they make promises to win the hearts of the citizens. It does not guarantee they will stick to their ideology once they are in power. Western politicians can be bribed as well, they just call it lobby

Social unrest come and go, as long CCP can manage to lift more poor out of poverty despite rising inequality between the rich and the poor, the party can rest assured of maintaining in power. Therefor reforms are necessary, dealing with corrupt politicians who are abusing their power for selfish gains, more development in the rural area which is what are seeing in the western part of China. Since ancient times when the population was dissatisfied with the emperor (usually lack of food due to weather), he would be toppled down and a new ruler emerges. Because we have abandoned the Dynasty system it would be illogical to topple the whole Party system and replace it with another Party or switching to a Democratic style. As long Chinese economy can sustain its growth, the basic 4 layers of Maslow's piramid should be met for the majority of the population hence a coup is deem unlikely.

In a sense, all of China has been a one-party system, whether it is an emperor, a KMT, or a CCP. That said, I hope China enjoys many more years of stability.

 

[JSCh]

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.
@TaiShang

Personally, I do not think that Guo MeiMei (郭美美) got her money from the Red Cross or have anything to do with donated money. But she is guilty of showing off excessively with her wealth, and it is a trait in some class of China's nouveau riche.

 

[tranquilium]

I don't think any country, bar the early Bolshevik soviet Union of Lenin (to an extent), really practices the true form of Communism as envisioned by Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels.

Lenin and early Bolshevik doesn't practice it. Marx and Engel's theory of communism is designed for an industrial society and USSR's industrialization didn't come until Stalin's days. It is not really surprising because while Karl Marx has great vision, he never actually ran a real world government in his life time, so it is not surprising that some of his theory doesn't work out.

 

[Desert Fox]

Lenin and early Bolshevik doesn't practice it. Marx and Engel's theory of communism is designed for an industrial society and USSR's industrialization didn't come until Stalin's days. It is not really surprising because while Karl Marx has great vision, he never actually ran a real world government in his life time, so it is not surprising that some of his theory doesn't work out.

Yeah, i agree, that's why i said in parenthesis 'to an extent'.

 

[Zsari]

This is where the potential flaw exists. Chinese bureaucrats are human, like everyone else. So far, so good, but there is no guarantee that they will always act in the best interests of China on the whole. We know that politicians in the US are short-sighted, but they are at least bound by the desires of the population; satisfy those desires, or do not get re-elected.

Regardless who is elected, regardless which party comes to power, it is the coporations that funds these races who are ultimately in control. The main reason behind the past success of the Anglo system is that the political system is tuned to serve and to maximize corporate interests. But come globalization and the corporate interests are no longer alligned with the national interest, and that's where the system starts to fail.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Regardless who is elected, regardless which party comes to power, it is the coporations that funds these races who are ultimately in control. The main reason behind the past success of the Anglo system is that the political system is tuned to serve and to maximize corporate interests. But come globalization and the corporate interests are no longer alligned with the national interest, and that's where the system starts to fail.

I don't quite understand this thinking. How are the interests of corporations not aligned with the citizens? What are corporations? Who works in corporations? Who owns corporations?

 

[Zsari]

I don't understand the relevance. I can't speak to the other countries, but the wealthy US politicians all made their money before becoming politicians. Chinese politicians, on the other hand...

Are China’s Politicians the Richest in the World? - The Wealth Report - WSJ

The delegates to the national congress in China are not politicans. Of the rich delegates, their day time jobs are CEO of major corporations or famous celebrities like Jacky Chan.

I don't quite understand this thinking. How are the interests of corporations not aligned with the citizens? What are corporations? Who works in corporations? Who owns corporations?

With globlization, corporation become global, and they don't have aliegence to any single country. Their success is no longer tied to the success of any single state, nor is the state they are originally from able to gain from their success.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

The delegates to the national congress in China are not politicans. Of the rich delegates, their day time jobs are CEO of major corporations or famous celebrities like Jacky Chan.



With globlization, corporation become global, and they don't have aliegence to any single country. Their success is no longer tied to the success of any single state, nor is the state they are originally from able to gain from their success.

The employees of the corporation, and the shareholders of the corporation, will continue to gain. True, not all of these will be citizens of the corporation's home country, but the majority of profit will belong to compatriots. I can see how from a Chinese perspective the state and the citizens are inseparable, but in the US, the citizens can still prosper while the corrupt state fails.