Liberal democracy is not desirable in China - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues in the People's Republic of China.

Moderator: PoFo Asia & Australasia Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#14491062
benpenguin wrote:But the events unfolding in Hong Kong just demonstrates how vulnerable a society can be when free speeches are allowed. I don't know much about France, so I cannot comment. But I strongly suspect how effective your laws can be, defending against US and Soviets at the same time. I'd place my bets that the Americans won on that covert war, instead of being blocked out.

Actually the situation was pretty interesting because at some point we had :

* A powerful French communist party that under the pretense of internationalism was for a long time greatly affiliated and loyal to the USSR, with its dedicated and very popular newspaper, but that at the same time had electors (up to one fourth of citizens at its peak) that were only or mostly concerned about French problems and that, even when they imagined the USSR as some workers' heaven, were deeply French and cautious about foreign influences. Let's also mention that this party was, curiously enough, often using with a national rhetoric in order to warn their electors about the US influences.

* A Gaullist party that was concerned about maintaining our independence between the USA and the USSR, that refused NATO and such (we only joined it a few years ago under Sarkozy), but that would have chosen the USA over the USSR if they ever had to because of stronger ideological affinities (the right wing naturally opposed communism).

* Around those two alliance leaders there was a collection of significant parties that, for the most part, are rather annoyed by both the USA and the USSR, and only bother about French problems.


And you know what? All of the money that the USA and mostly the USSR (*) poured into the system didn't change the result a lot: in the end, elections were about France, about French problems and about ideological choices for France. People who voted for the communist party voted for communism in France. A minority would have supported a soviet invasion of France, but only because it would have led to communism. On the opposite, the fact that the communist party was affiliated to the USSR greatly harmed them and prevented them to rise. It is only soon after the left grew independent of the USSR that their ideas finally conquered the booths. Because the USSR strongly tried to manipulate us, they got the opposite result and communism was defeated in France thanks to their action. Finally, even if the communist party could have conquered the booths, the rest of their alliance would have rendered them unable to enforce a strong pro-Russian stance and they would have had to preserve some form of neutrality to respect the national consensus. This resilience to manipulation was the very consequence of the plurality of information, because people had neutral sources they could trust.

(*) The USA didn't have to manipulate us that much given that their ideological model was already similar to ours.

Many people I know, inside and outside of China, will reference CNN and BBC like it is already the final truth.

Aren't they middle-upper classes, mostly young? We have those in France, young men who tend to favor US news sites and value everything in English higher than what is written in French, as beta males who follow what they think the alpha male is. But if this is the same thing, then you should not worry about this: this occurs because they perceive the English world as superior. As your country grows, becomes more powerful and changes to address their critics, then they will see your country as superior.

However, of course, if you're unable to match their critics and desires, they will continue to follow US newssites. But then it will not be your bigger problem as this attraction is only a symptom rather than the disease itself.

Why allow these rodents around in the first place?

For the freedom of association, of course. So that your citizens can freely gather and cooperate and make China better, so that your rich people craving for reputation and repentance can set up large charities to improve education, etc. A strong associative world (NGO pool) is a great asset to improve your country, fix its flaws and force your government and corporations to improve. The fact that a few NGO will be created by foreign forces for manipulation purposes is a small price to pay.

Now that would depend on what you interpret as "conspiracy".

I meant the very kind of examples you provided. Again I never denied the existence of those manipulations, and of course you can list a hundred of such operations, I could as well. Yet I simply say that when it comes to the medias attitude in the world, most of them do not result from manipulations, covert operations, etc. They are simply the honest expression of those journalists' perception and interpretation of facts.

That being said, regarding US medias specifically (and to a lesser extent the Anglosphere), I also previously mentioned that they are far more subject to the CIA storytelling on foreign matters. In other words, the US medias tend to genuinely replicate the CIA propaganda on foreign matters. But outside of the US, the CIA influence over medias is globally loose. You can find a few corrupt journalists, opinion carriers, you can emphasize the role of press agencies, etc. Yet all of this is not nearly as effective outside of the US as you think it is.

The color revolutions, Venezula oppositions, and millions of covert operations are pushed by CIA, that much is clear. They are involved in almost every coup and social unrest in the world, and their own documents presents that much.

The first part is true, the second is not. Many coups in the world have absolutely nothing to see with the CIA, from most of sub-Saharan coups to the start of the Arab summer. And even if the CIA pushes the Venezuelan opposition, it would be strong without them because personalities like Chavez who hold a weekly show on TV divide their countries and because Venezuela has been divided for a long time. Even the Ukraine coup was grounded into a powerful opposition against a very mediocre and egotistical leader.
#14491180
Harmattan wrote:And you know what? All of the money that the USA and mostly the USSR (*) poured into the system didn't change the result a lot: in the end, elections were about France, about French problems and about ideological choices for France.

I believe you. Perhaps the CIA wasn't as powerful back then, perhaps Europeans are somehow more tolerant to these stuff because you guys are more educated? I am not sure, but I don't really see the same rationality where I am from.

However, of course, if you're unable to match their critics and desires, they will continue to follow US newssites. But then it will not be your bigger problem as this attraction is only a symptom rather than the disease itself.

Partly true, as I said, most of the time China isn't quite the saint themselves. Actually, same reason why I support the umbrella protests in Hong Kong. Jimmy Lai and Apple Daily, in this case for example, seems to be helping my cause. However, the longer it gets, the more it shows that they aren't interested in any rational solution - they are interested in thrusting the whole event into flames.

These hostile opposition news sources mostly work to enlarge problems instead of proposing rational solutions - calling for demonstrations, calling for impeachment of some officials etc, instead of proposing alternative solutions or having a discussion. They also sell lies and rumors at times when they run out of things to use against the establishment and they can win most of the time against state/neutral sources, because:
1. "Fuck the government" is eternally cool.
2. They can write emotionally charged, populist talk points all day, and facts seldom matter. Poems win every time against prose.
3. The international media will back their story to the bitter end.
4. Opposition news can always whip up young idealistic people, but opposed by the middle class. The problem is, the middle class is composed of older people who aren't politically active.
5. China proper as of now has a lot of frustrated young people in their population as well. You can't get rich magically like in the 80s anymore, and we also have lots of pressures such as housing prices and an aging population. They are very vulnerable to incitement - combined with a hostile media it becomes a receipt for disaster.
It is certainly true that China has a lot of problems and a bad reputation. On the propaganda battle, our position is weak, and this is not likely to change very soon. We can try to fix our problems and keep our people happy but that also takes time. Perhaps, when our position becomes really strong, we can be confident enough to open up. Not now.

A strong associative world (NGO pool) is a great asset to improve your country, fix its flaws and force your government and corporations to improve. The fact that a few NGO will be created by foreign forces for manipulation purposes is a small price to pay.

In fact there are a few such neutral NGOs here in China, the Red Cross for instance. As long as they remain apolitical we leave them alone. These are however tightly controlled.

They are simply the honest expression of those journalists' perception and interpretation of facts. You can find a few corrupt journalists, opinion carriers, you can emphasize the role of press agencies, etc. Yet all of this is not nearly as effective outside of the US as you think it is.

Ok, I buy you. Thing is, when it comes to international news, most news agencies around the world tend to use or reference Reuters articles directly, especially for news that doesn't concern themselves. For China, well everyone hates China - many of these news sources will take CNN/Reuters news without any independent verification - readers always love a bit of China bashing. These passive aggressiveness serves to echo and enlarge US propaganda to the point where it easily snowballs into a worldwide smear campaign, however unintentional, every time.

Many coups in the world have absolutely nothing to see with the CIA

I might have exaggerated - they are just one powerful organization with little moral constraint - after all, no matter how powerful they were, they wouldn't be able to participate meaningfully in every conflict. However, in the case with Venezuela or with Libya for example (Ukraine is bankrolled equally by Russia and NATO, so fair game), the opposition would have easily been put down or reached a compromise if not of these covert and overt interventions. The CIA (Or MI6 and Mossad for that matter) managed to prolong a lot of conflicts or even turn back the results, most of the time not to the benefit of the populations anyway.
#14491268
Harmattan wrote:a) Declining demography for decades.
b) Inflating debts for decades.
c) Fast relative loss of power because of the rise of new powers.
d) Transformation into police states since 2001 and the shrinking of democracy in Europe as our nations merge into this giant English-speaking and non-democratic excrement called EU.


a) A result of increasing income, change of lifestyle, not necessarily liberal democracy.
b) There is nothing wrong with debt per se. What is being saved is obviously being lent out.
c) Only relative decline.
d)

So you think the actual threat is that democracy is being abolished? I agree with that. Just look at the posters in this thread. They trivialize the achievements of liberal democracy ("it only works in Western Europe and the US", obviously wrong), they misrepresent its history ("its an anglo-saxon thing"), they even call it a "fetish" (Crantag). If our elite is blessed with such fools in the population, it should be an easy thing for them to install a police state an abolish the damn thing once and for all. I'm sure our elite would love to be like China's or Russia's and fuck over the people whenever they wish.
#14491381
Rugoz wrote:a) A result of increasing income, change of lifestyle, not necessarily liberal democracy.
b) There is nothing wrong with debt per se. What is being saved is obviously being lent out.
c) Only relative decline.

a) I never said it was because of liberal democracy, I am simply saying that our demography shows the West is declining.
b) But this proves that the current socio-economical balance of the West have been unsustainable for decades. Adjusting them will be difficult and will worsen the social problems and maybe hurt the economy.
c) The essence of power is relative. What matters is how much more or less powerful you are when compared to those you interact with. We enjoyed domination, we're going to experience submission.

So you think the actual threat is that democracy is being abolished?

More exactly I think that democracy is further voided of its substance. This is much more subtle, will cause far less protests and you will still have idiots claiming that we live in democracies once it is done. Actually you will even have a hard time debunking them as our regimes will be even harder to understand. By the way, let me remember you that in my eyes the European Union that you support is one of the main forces behind the annihilation of European democracies since, as I explained about China, I think that democracy is only significant at a small scale and within homogeneous groups (same language, same culture).
#14491387
So you think the actual threat is that democracy is being abolished? I agree with that. Just look at the posters in this thread. They trivialize the achievements of liberal democracy ("it only works in Western Europe and the US", obviously wrong), they misrepresent its history ("its an anglo-saxon thing"), they even call it a "fetish" (Crantag). If our elite is blessed with such fools in the population, it should be an easy thing for them to install a police state an abolish the damn thing once and for all. I'm sure our elite would love to be like China's or Russia's and fuck over the people whenever they wish.


People tend to look not much further their own belly buttons: as long as they are milking the system somehow, they will be willing to support the status quo.
Things start to change when their belly buttons and their loved one's belly buttons stop being contemplated by the regime. If someone like Benpenguin or the ones he cares about start being oppressed directly by the government, he will emigrate to the US and become the most fanatic and passionate enthusiast of the founding fathers and of democracy that you will ever met, despite all the rethoric he currently utters. That's how it happens.

http://www.dw.de/the-chinese-dream-is-called-emigration/a-17625376
#14491453
They trivialize the achievements of liberal democracy ("it only works in Western Europe and the US", obviously wrong), they misrepresent its history ("its an anglo-saxon thing")

Harmattan at least listed some successful democratic countries like Japan and Korea and discussed it with FRS. You should try to do the same.

I have written an entire 2 pages analyzing why Western Europe and US is successful, which took 200+ years of history and a hell lots of effort, of cause it is not trivial. I am just saying that I won't attribute this success to "liberal democracy". It is just my plain observation that the majority of democratic country outside this sphere never achieved their level of success.

It is you who are trivilizing the achievements of China, insisting that all our developments in people's livlihoods and economy doesn't matter, because we have "no freedom". In this very thread, I have dissected, point by point, of all the usual liberal talk points and why I don't think it works. You just skimmed it and dumbed it down into strawmans.

I have repeated, multiple times, that I acknowledge China has lots of problems, and our system is not perfect. I am saying that liberal democray is not the model answer, just a good reference. I also am explaining why it is difficult or infeasible for us to adopt this ideology.

And your replies are just lazy. Instead of answering my points, you guys are going for character assassination instead. This is disappointing.
Last edited by benpenguin on 28 Nov 2014 01:44, edited 1 time in total.
#14491456
Technically it's not even particularly well-done character assassination either. All he's saying is that you support the existence of the Chinese government because it is developing your country's capabilities and not directly harming you -- and that if in some hypothetical scenario it ceased to be that way, you might defect.

There's nothing particularly abnormal about that, Soulflytribe might as well have just accused you of being 'a human being and a rational actor'. Oh no, what can anyone do after such a sick burn.
#14491479
benpenguin wrote:Agreed. Even the Chinese government is not throwing all "Western models" into the bin. Your independent legal system, your anti-corruption policies, and the environmental protection laws are good, so on and so forth. We actually learn a lot of lessons from the West and from the Soviets, and we optimize our political doctrines every new generation of leaders.
I am simply rejecting the notion of liberal democracy as gospel truth or an end goal of Chinese politics, that's all.


I know it wasn't your intent, but please don't call them 'your' in response to me.

I was born in the US. But I have lived in Asia for a long time (Japan mostly) and basically consider myself a citizen of the world.
#14491613
benpenguin wrote:- I am just saying that I won't attribute this success to "liberal democracy".
- It is just my plain observation that the majority of democratic country outside this sphere never achieved their level of success.
- It is you who are trivilizing the achievements of China.
- I also am explaining why it is difficult or infeasible for us to adopt this ideology.
- Instead of answering my points, you guys are going for character assassination instead.


- We should probably better define what "liberal democracy" exactly stands for and look at how it developed over time. I mean absolute monarchies in Europe didn't turn into liberal democracies over night (in some instances there even existed short-lived anomalies like fascism and communism, kind of funny China went for that).
- Not relevant since all other types of regimes did a lot worse.
- Tit for tat.
- That's fine.
- It wasn't really targeted at you.

Harmattan wrote:- But this proves that the current socio-economical balance of the West have been unsustainable for decades.
- By the way, let me remember you that in my eyes the European Union that you support


- Again, there's nothing wrong with debt. Mature economies naturally have accumulated more assets/debt.
- Well I think something like the EU is needed in Europe (i.e. institutions for economic/political cooperation), but its a bit of a stretch to say I support it. I support it against Russia, obviously.

Helping Ukraine to defeat the Russian invasion an[…]

https://twitter.com/huwaidaarraf/status/1773389663[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

What wat0n is trying to distract from: https://tw[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/1773436787622[…]