Why China’s Political Model Is Superior

[Jackdaws]

Our foreign policy is controlled by the US, indeed, but our internal affairs are more democratic and fair than the US, though our democracy has also been eroding since the end of the Cold War albeit not as crazy as the USA.

You can always burn down the parliament, blame it on a commie plot and install a new fuhrer for the father land. You have done it before.

 

[gambit]

Wow, you can't be serious. Britain doesn't have "500 years of democracy" - universal suffrage was only implemented in 1928. The Magna Carta was supposed to curtail the powers of the king. Britain has always been averse to authoritarianism - we can see this from the gradual marginalization of the Monarch and the ascendancy of Parliament, but this shouldn't be confused with democracy. Your comment about the UN is equally spurious - the UN has no national interests of its own, but is designed to resolve international conflict. Of course it's gonna invite input from all members. Also, the real power organ of the UN is in the UNSC. Like a 5-member aristocracy. Not so democratic, huh?

Anyway, that 'rebuttal' from Allen was a complete non-sequitur. Li's point was that China's model is superior (compared to democracy) because it's more capable of securing China's national interests. Allen's response was "wait, are you sure that's true? because we already think China's a threatening ruthless super efficient machine, and it reminds us of hitler!!!". Well duh, that's the point. China's model is better for pursuing national interests, and when it sufficiently empowers us, we will mow down the west.

You talk as if 'national interests' is something unique to China. Perhaps the long term willingness to subordinate one's freedoms and rights to a dictatorship hiding itself behind the 'national interests' shield is unique to the Chinese psyche, but when national interests are at stake, citizens of every nations are willing act the same as any Chinese would. Keep in mind that it was national interests that the Europeans carved China apart and it was America who put a stop to colonialism after WW II. So try to 'mow' the West down at your own peril. Keep in mind that our lawnmowers' blades are far sharper than China's and that we have far more experience at using them than China.

I see another Chinese who support China but too chickensh!t to live under the system he applauds.

 

[samrat]

You can always burn down the parliament, blame it on a commie plot and install a new fuhrer for the father land. You have done it before.

Communism died..have to blame on something else.

 

[gambit]

Communism died..have to blame on something else.

But not 'commies'. Communism is a very emotionally attractive ideology. For a sheeple, there is nothing better than to be told what to do and how to live. For such a people, choice and conscience are chains.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

It is a lot more than that. It is the very foundation of limiting authority and divesting power. The chinese enjoy being told what to do -it is a cultural thing

Despite Magna Charta, the Brits had no problems to enslave Africans and exterminate Native Americans and Australians, despite Magna Charta, the Brits had no pronblems to plunder India to the last penny, despite the Magna Charta, the Brits had no problems to peddle their drugs to the Chinese. Is that a cultural thing as well?

And you parroting half knowledge and glorification of your former master, is that a cultural thing as well?

 

[gambit]

Despite Magna Charta, the Brits had no problems to enslave Africans and exterminate Native Americans and Australians, despite Magna Charta, the Brits had no pronblems to plunder India to the last penny, despite the Magna Charta, the Brits had no problems to peddle their drugs to the Chinese. Is that a cultural thing as well?

And you parroting half knowledge and glorification of your former master, is that a cultural thing as well?

The Magna Carta was about the rule of law, not of morality. So if there were no laws regarding the legal status of blacks, then it was was legal -- although immoral -- to engage in slavery. Same for just about everything else you listed.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

You can always burn down the parliament, blame it on a commie plot and install a new fuhrer for the father land. You have done it before.

Look, who is speaking! The guy who glorifies fascist atrocities recommends me to act like the Nazis.

BTW, you seem not to have understood what I wrote, or have I insulted your new found master, the US, by saying that German democracy is better than US American democracy?

 

[gambit]

Look, who is speaking! The guy who glorifies fascist atrocities recommends me to act like the Nazis.

BTW, you seem not to have understood what I wrote, or have I insulted your new found master, the US, by saying that German democracy is better than US American democracy?

Saying it is one thing, proving it is another. This tells me you do not understand what is 'democracy' at the philosophical level.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

The Magna Carta was about the rule of law, not of morality. So if there were no laws regarding the legal status of blacks, then it was was legal -- although immoral -- to engage in slavery. Same for just about everything else you listed.

But the reasoning to curtail the power of the king was morally that happens to be done by law and as Jackdaw claimed it's the foundation of democracy, which also claims moral superiority. If the Magna Charta has no moral foundation, what moral ligitimacy does it have?

 

[Götterdämmerung]

Saying it is one thing, proving it is another. This tells me you do not understand what is 'democracy' at the philosophical level.

What philosophical level? Kant? Schoppenhauer? Nietzsche? Or going further back to Aristoteles, Platon, Confucius, Laozi or Buddha?

 

[gambit]

But the reasoning to curtail the power of the king was morally that happens to be done by law and as Jackdaw claimed it's the foundation of democracy, which also claims moral superiority. If the Magna Charta has no moral foundation, what moral ligitimacy does it have?

Wrong again. The Magna Carta should be understood in the sense that is a document outlining the roles of the government and the citizenry AFTER a moral foundation have been established for the nation. Yes, there is a push-pull relationship in law and morality. If a people decided to obey a law, after a period of time, enforcement of said law will become needless or at least irrelevant. The idea that the law enforces and punishes became a moral dictate for one's conscience. But this is not what the Magna Carta was ALL about. Of course there is a hint of morality in everything we do.

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

No political system is "Superior" to another. Each country has it's own society and culture. Some systems apply in different ways in each State. California (State/Province in America) allows referendums, while other states in America don't.

Having a Presidential election in Afghanistan means having more than 150 candidates on a ballot. . Can you imagine Americans trying to elect 1 person from 150+ candidates? I mean seriously we cant even elect 1 without going to the Supreme Court.

Look even Judge Ginsburg, on the US Supreme Court said to the Egyptians not to model their new Constitution on the American, and instead look at South Africa's and the Constitutions by other nations in the world. It was a firestorm in the new channels. Why? Because the American Constitution has been itself edited over the years. And new meanings of each Amendment applied. Even the American Constitution was written up after previous failed attempts.

Egypt will have to write its own Constitution by itself. And Egyptians will have to vote on it. America will have to deal with it.

Gambit: The most pure form of Communism is in Norway, and yet the country is doing pretty good by Norwayian standards.

 

[gambit]

What philosophical level? Kant? Schoppenhauer? Nietzsche? Or going further back to Aristoteles, Platon, Confucius, Laozi or Buddha?

You know all those foreign words and names? Am impressed.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Can you write a few lines about chinese model. If I dont know what I am talking about I would hardly be able to contribute to the discussion.
As a chinese I am sure you will have a rough idea of your political system, how your leaders get certain post etc.

I am sure I am not the only one who is ignorant in this matter.

This gets complicated. This is going to be a LONG POST but it will be VERY USEFUL.

There's 3 parallel tracks in China: Civil Service, Elected Representatives, Party.

In China, there's political positions, and unelected bureaucratic positions. the difference is, the political positions are subject to contest among candidates and they control an area, while ministries are appointed with no contest and they are national or even transnational in reach in their specialty. the only exceptions are the Premier and Vice Premiers, who can control anything. they're written below according to rank:

1.国家级正职 - Premier and President.
2.国家级副职 - vice-Premiers and vice-Presidents.
3.省部级正职 - Political: Governor of the Provinces. Bureaucratic: Minister.
4.省部级副职 - Political: Vice-Governor of the Provinces. Bureaucratic: Vice-Minister
5.厅局级正职 - Political: None (used to be District &#22320. Bureaucratic: Department Leader
6.厅局级副职 - Political: None (used to be District &#22320. Bureaucratic: Vice Department Leader
7.县处级正职 - Political: County Supervisor. Bureaucratic: Office leader.
8.县处级副职 - Political: Vice County Supervisor. Bureaucratic: Vice Office leader.
9.乡科级正职 - Political: Village Mayor. Bureaucratic: Section leader.
10.乡科级副职 - Political: vice Village Mayor. Bureaucratic: vice Section leader.

Each of these ranks has a corresponding CPC committee. the leader of this committee is usually different from the leader of the government/bureaucratic rank. The CPC committee is ranked slightly higher than the leader of the government rank to which they belong to, but the rank above always has more authority.

levels 7-10 are currently directly elected for political positions. Levels 5-6 are elected by a council of representatives at the provincial level. Levels 1-4 are elected by the National People's Congress. These apply for only political positions. All bureaucratic positions are unelected and appointed. The department responsible for appointing government positions is the Ministry of Human Resources.

There is also a corresponding Chinese People's Political Consultative Congress, which is a "democratic advisory body" composed of ordinary citizens, members of non-CPC political parties and special interest groups such as labor unions, women's groups, NGOs, major corporations, youth groups, etc. They have no legislative or executive power, they're just an advisory body, but in practice, the leader of the CPPCC is always a top leader (ranked #4 nationally).

The corresponding CPC structure is different. The top is the CPC Central Committee which is made up of about 1000 elected members; they're elected by other CPC members. These 1000 members appoint a Secretariat. This secretariat has many departments, one of which is the Organization Department. The Organization Department is a specialized body which appoints CPC leadership positions such as committee secretaries and the heads of the Legislative and Legal Committee (oversight for law enforcement), Discipline Inspection Committee (along with the Ministry of Supervision, oversees other officials) and Propaganda, as well as lower Organizational Departments. They evaluate people through interviews with their friends and family, psychological tests and background checks.

The central committee also elects a Politburo, which is itself relatively powerless but is usually composed of people powerful for their other positions - usually governors and secretaries of important provinces, top military generals, important ministries, CPC department heads, and national leaders.

The Politburo then appoints the supreme leadership of China, the Politburo Standing Committee, a 9 member council which is made up of the top leaders in the government and the CPC. They are powerful because of not only their Politburo positions but because of their powerful national government positions which are always represented.

1. President Hu Jintao (who is always concurrently secretary general of the CPC and leader of the armed forces)

2. Speaker of the National People's Congress Wu Bangguo (highest legislator)

3. Premier Wen Jiabao (highest bureaucrat)

4. Chairman of the National Committee of the CPPCC Jia Qinglin (highest advisor)

5. Secretary of Propaganda Li Changchun (highest censor)

6. Vice President Xi Jinping (highest vice-President to succeed President)

7. Vice Premier Li Keqiang (highest vice-Premier to succeed Premier)

8. Secretary of Disciplinary Inspection He Guoqiang (controls personel and anti-corruption)

9. Secretary of Legislative Affairs Zhou Yongkang (controls police and intelligence services)

 

[Raphael]

You talk as if 'national interests' is something unique to China. Perhaps the long term willingness to subordinate one's freedoms and rights to a dictatorship hiding itself behind the 'national interests' shield is unique to the Chinese psyche, but when national interests are at stake, citizens of every nations are willing act the same as any Chinese would. Keep in mind that it was national interests that the Europeans carved China apart and it was America who put a stop to colonialism after WW II. So try to 'mow' the West down at your own peril. Keep in mind that our lawnmowers' blades are far sharper than China's and that we have far more experience at using them than China.

I see another Chinese who support China but too chickensh!t to live under the system he applauds.

Uh oh, someone else who doesn't understand nuance is trying to respond. I'll try my best to communicate with you, but it's evident that conceptually, we don't speak the same language, so try to hang on.

Firstly, it seems you were roused into responding because my last statement was kinda incendiary. I admit I got carried away there. More objectively though, and independent of any nationalistic sentiments, I really do expect that to happen sometime within my lifetime. If it doesn't, more power to you - as a yank, you obviously don't stand to benefit so I understand your anguish

Anyway, I never claimed that the West doesn't try to secure it's interests - the ugly history of Western imperialism, somewhat restrained after WWII, but still very aggressive, is something that most non-Westerners haven't forgotten. However, the key phrase was "more capable". It's my impression that democracy, especially as of late, has been pretty inefficient at securing national interests. Your invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan haven't really furthered your geopolitical interests. They were fanned by politicians looking to satisfy the public's bloodlust after 9/11. If something similar happened to China, there'd be probably a few special ops operations against the terrorists and that would be that. The government would probably clamp down on jingoistic media that calls for more war, just because it would be so antithetical to national interest. It's what should have happened in the USA, but hey, you guys like your democracy.

Of course, it's difficult to make a direct comparisons with Western nations. Experimentation with democracy in the other two Asiatic powers, Russia and India, have however been pretty ugly IMO. India's democracy brought the Nehru-Gandhi family to power for most of it's post-independence history. They are a rent-seeking parasitic political family that pandered to poor people with socialist policies and left India pretty damn poor. Even now, a lot of corruption in India is synergized and codependent on the democratic political institutions that give the poor and uneducated too much undue say in governance. Russian democracy has been similarly disastrous, and it's only through its subversion to a more autocratic form that Russia has seen growth and recovery.

Anyway, the West advocates democracy because it makes countries more susceptile to their influence. Jawaharlal Nehru may have been the moron brainchild behind "licence raj" and left millions of Indians starving, but at least he was responsive to adulation by Western intellectuals who praised his "wonderful democracy that melds together all those diverse Indian peoples". TO reward his obedience, the IMF and World Bank would throw scraps of aid to India. Likewise, democracy in Russia allowed Western corporations to collude with Russian oligarchs and loot the country's wealth. Putin massacred those traitors, and the few that survived scampered off to London and they now write whiny articles in the Telegraph about how Russia is "regressing".

So yeah, I'm pretty damn glad that China has pursued its own development model and given a big "f*** you" to all the subversive Western democracy activists that snakishly claim to advocate for "the rights of the chinese people". The Chinese people will assert their rights through dissent and uprising when the current government is no longer competent at securing China's interest, thank you very much.