[benpenguin]

In response of some of the posts I see here. A lot of western liberals never seem to understand that a liberal China is not possible, nor desirable, ever. I would even go far enough to explain that I support the current Chinese government. Let me explain:

1. Population is way too big (14 Billion, more than the entire US+Europe+Russia, hello), and way too diverse (Han + 55 ethnicity, every province has a vastly different culture). You can't get everybody to even remotely agree on anything.

2. If you want it liberalized, you will need to fracture it first. And a fractured China is a weak China. If China is fractured, the first thing to happen is that CIA and NED will get busy making everyone fight each other.

3. A centralized China also means a rich and powerful central government, who needs that for national defense and infrastructure developments. I lived my life 25 years in Hong Kong and Australia before I went inside China myself. Everything I hear outside the Chinese borders are bashing and bashing and bashing. Inside China is where I can see how much the "evil communist government" has accomplished for the country. And none of their achievements are possible without this money and power.

4. Every social problem that I hear outside China or has ever known of, is actually being tackled here in a very serious and ferocious manner. Every year there are very significant improvements that you can see, clear as daylight. I never felt this kind of energy in Hong Kong nor Australia nor anywhere on the world. All I see is "democratic governments" argue all day long on all possible topics, then the next party wins the election and does the same (nothing) altogether again. In the liberal world everybody bitches all day long and does nothing, while the Chinese shut the fuck up and just do it.

5. No freedoms, you say? I don't see how this is more important than feeding the population and holding it together, but hey, lets talk about it since you guys care so much. There are less POLITICAL freedoms, sure (Which is already opening a lot, by the way). But you are free to make suggestions to the government, even bash it a bit. Newspapers here criticize government policies all the time, and citizens' voice reaches the government pretty quickly, which actually gets acted on. Sure, the communication channels are pretty informal and left much to desire, and the government is working on that. Improvements seen every year. Can you say the same with your own governments, on responsiveness?

6. Sure, the Communists fucked up big times in the cultural revolution, but they grew out of that. The world still seemed to still equate China to "evil regime", but in fact most of the Chinese here supports the government and is optimist for the future. Comparing to the decline of the democratic west and developments of countries that has "the correct system" imposed on them, the liberal position is becoming less and less desirable to us, barring the few young university idealists.

7. Living standards haven't yet caught up to the west by far but is slowly closing. The west, has after all, plundered hundreds of countries to enrich a much smaller population. Of cause they can afford nice social benefits for everyone! US, for instance, inherited the goddamn British empire, won 2nd world war, cold war and hold the world economy hostage. And despite that we are actually catching up. Now you want us to redo our political system, "because freedom"?

I invite everybody to criticize China as you always do - that helps us discover our problems, but please look at the improvements as well, for a change. China is no longer simply the backwater slave factory before.

[Crantag]

The fetishism of 'democracy' among Americans and West Europeans is really a tremendous blinder.

The appropriation and exploitation of this fetishism for imperialist purposes by the military-political establishment aside, the entire ideological fallacy which propagates the infantile dichotomy of ''democracy'=good; non-'democracy'=bad' is a tremendous inhibitor to critical thought about various states and various political systems. People caught in this particular group think will never understand the complexities of, for example, China.

An insightful post, OP.

[benpenguin]

Thanks Crantag. Don't know why this post received so little attention - so much hate towards China in this forum.

I did received the following PM though:

CCP does not care about the people,religion and it's culture, it's pseudo Marxist first, above all else, the country's Army is loyal to the party not the people, your country is the most corrupt,polluted,unequal country on Earth. Mao is murderer who care more about his stupid foreign ideology from a faggot ass self hating Jew, the only reason CCP promotes nationalism, is to keep the hate away from them and towards the Japan who are better rulers then your leaders. I don't have to visit the place to know that people in HK and Mainland hates CCP. Should I show you how, Fulan Gong members are being harvest for their limbs, or how there is dead pigs in the rivers making it undrinkable. How religion, your religion, is being destroyed by the party. Guns are banned, there more security members for Chinese politicians, then armed forces, people are poor and suffering. They need a constitutional monarchy, with a fascist government. If you can't see that, then you don't deserve to be Chinese, it's wasted on you. Overthrow the CCP, restore the Qing.

I wrote a two page reply in response to that, but suddenly felt a little stupid, for some reason.

[Rei Murasame]

Name the writer of the PM! Who was it?

[benpenguin]

Take a guess first It shouldn't be hard.

[Rejn]

EM? I just saw "restore religion" and "restore the Qing", but the rest doesn't really sound like him and he probably wouldn't say "pseudo-Marxist". I dunno really.

[Beren]

Thanks Crantag. Don't know why this post received so little attention - so much hate towards China in this forum.

It was 4:33 am here when you posted the OP, sorry for not being so fast. Not that the topic is something new, we've seen many credos like that, you're not the first or only one expressing such ideas on PoFo.

Although it's not really a matter of size whether liberal democracy is desirable, it's desirable in huge, diverse, and complex societies more than in relatively small and homogeneous city states. Introducing liberal democracy in China could be too early perhaps, but it will happen sooner or later anyway, as well as the country will have to be decentralised some time.

[fuser]

I am also guessing, its EM, still on his pseudo break it seems.

Anyhow good op I agree with desirability part but not with possibility part i.e. I do think its possible to implement liberal democracy in China (without fracturing it in different parts) but I don't think its desirable.

[benpenguin]

ANNNNNND THE ANSWER IS EM! GOOD JOB EVERYONE!

Although it's not really a matter of size whether liberal democracy is desirable, it's desirable in huge, diverse, and complex societies more than in relatively small and homogeneous city states.

Really? A larger size means a harder vote count at the very least - it's also much harder to get people to agree. It also radicalizes differences. For instance, political opinions are polarizing heavily like US and Taiwan between cities and provinces already, to the point of regional rivalry, despite the small population. Now magify the differents by 200 times and you will foresee hows that gonna fare for China.

Introducing liberal democracy in China could be too early perhaps, but it will happen sooner or later anyway, as well as the country will have to be decentralised some time.

Not sure about that one. Centralization has the benefit of defending against the US enroachment, also the state level projects (space, infrastructure etc), the government is also a lot more responsive to state wide problems. Once it figures out what the problem is, they can put measures in place immediately without arguing to the end of days like in the west.

But that is also a problem, because a big state means very diverse interests, and centralized decisions will not fit everyone. It could be very beneficial in one place and disasterous in others - that happens in China quite a lot too.

However, at the moment there are way too many enemies surrounding China, decentralization will be very dangerous.

I do think its possible to implement liberal democracy in China (without fracturing it in different parts) but I don't think its desirable.

How so?

[fuser]

How so?

Never underestimate Liberalism, its very adaptable and endurable after all its been a very successful ideology (at least at existing), liberal democracy doesn't mean "freedom for everyone to do whatever they want", its all buzzword even with democracy different vested groups will be not getting independence as liberal democracies are also good at suppressing such sentiments (its not land of milk and honeys) while state still remain enough power to put across its own agenda in the populace against these separatist tendency.

I mean look at India, China is nowhere near it when it comes to diversity (Hell, I will wager its more diverse than all Europe at least western) and I don't mean only on linguistic or ethnic basis but damn caste, there are hundreds of caste here and you can literally win elections through mathematics (i.e. just add up which castes are voting for you, you need a powerful leader from the caste you are seeking vote) but still for all its fault, the state survives and I don't think its going to be fractured into different parts in near future.

I am ready to accept that liberal democracy has held India back (but that's a desirability issue on which I agreed with you) but on possibility issue as your argument was basically diversity and resultant vested interests, I don't think its a strong argument because look at India.

[benpenguin]

I would actually like to compare China and India to see who's doing better, because both has very similar background, big population/diversity, relatively underdeveloped - but unfortunately I don't know India well enough to do so. (I can't even pronounce most of the names to learn its politics)

One main difference, however, is that India is an US ally, not China. India is not under relentless slendering from global media nor subversive attacks from CIA/NED hecks. Sure, she has her enemies, but no where as powerful or aggressive as those China has on her ass.

And when a country is besieged like this, they will need a strong leadership.

I am ready to accept that liberal democracy has held India back

I can't tell you this, but for the very least, I do not feel the ferocity of reforms or strong government will in India. I could be wrong, but India felt...complacent.

[fuser]

I would actually like to compare China and India to see who's doing better, because both has very similar background, big population/diversity, relatively underdeveloped - but unfortunately I don't know India well enough to do so.

Economically China is ahead of India by far but in terms of sheer diversity India is ahead of China by far.

One main difference, however, is that India is an US ally

This is not true, China and USA had been more on same side than India US in their history because more or less India was in Soviet block and Pakistan was a strong ally to both China and USA. Indian US relations have eased down post USSR fall but still they are far from being allies. But the current political establishment do look forward for a strong Indo US relationship.

I can't tell you this, but for the very least, I do not feel the ferocity of reforms or strong government will in India. I could be wrong, but India felt...complacent.

You miss my point I am not saying that Liberal Democracy is desirable for India, in fact I will argue against it but what I am saying that even if not desirable it is indeed possible, so is the case with China.

[benpenguin]

This is not true, China and USA had been more on same side than India US in their history because more or less India was in Soviet block and Pakistan was a strong ally to both China and USA. Indian US relations have eased down post USSR fall but still they are far from being allies. But the current political establishment do look forward for a strong Indo US relationship.

For the very least, we never saw lots of harsh media attacks against India since the 80s. Just check CNN/BBC/AJ or any channel for that matter- nearly every single piece of news are hostile against China - they just fell short of pushing "humanitarian bombing to protect civilians" India never has to face that kind of hostility.

These global media outlets put tons of pressure on China - it basically alieniates us to the rest of the world for a whole decade, and is still doing so. China has to protect herself by censorship and keep hold on a strong centralized power, if not we are vulnerable.

[Saeko]

3. A centralized China also means a rich and powerful central government, who needs that for national defense and infrastructure developments. I lived my life 25 years in Hong Kong and Australia before I went inside China myself. Everything I hear outside the Chinese borders are bashing and bashing and bashing. Inside China is where I can see how much the "evil communist government" has accomplished for the country. And none of their achievements are possible without this money and power.

Fucking this. I'm a huge fan of the CCP.

All that democracy will get you is endless bickering, and people putting party before country.

The only advantages a democratic system might have are purely propagandistic. It makes people feel like they are part of the decision making process, and that makes it much easier to rationalize the actions of the government.

In order to govern effectively, it is obvious that a government would need good info on what people want, what they think, etc. But I don't think a democracy is actually any good at doing that.

[Lexington]

We're too stupid to govern ourselves, so we need an unelected elite to figure out stuff for us and we hope they do nice things for us.

The only advantages a democratic system might have are purely propagandistic. It makes people feel like they are part of the decision making process, and that makes it much easier to rationalize the actions of the government.

It is a little easier to throw the corrupt idiots out if you can vote them out rather than having to put your life on the line protesting/rioting/revolting.

And that's the thing: the communist party has done a good job for a while. The problem, and the reason for democracy, is when they stop doing a good job. Then what do you do?

[Saeko]

We're too stupid to govern ourselves, so we need an unelected elite to figure out stuff for us and we hope they do nice things for us.

Doing nice things for yourself is not the point of governing. That's just putting your own narrow self-interest above everything else. So the second half of that sentence proves the first half.

It is a little easier to throw the corrupt idiots out if you can vote them out rather than having to put your life on the line protesting/rioting/revolting.

You can vote out the corrupt idiots so you can elect corrupt idiots. Corruption cannot be resolved that way. The would-be corrupt idiots themselves need to identify with the government/state so that they can put the needs of the country before their own short-sighted and ill-gotten gains. A democracy can do no such thing. Democratic politicians mostly identify with their party, ideology, supporters, and voting blocs.

And that's the thing: the communist party has done a good job for a while. The problem, and the reason for democracy, is when they stop doing a good job. Then what do you do?

You wait.

[benpenguin]

The problem, and the reason for democracy, is when they stop doing a good job. Then what do you do?

People have been looking for a solution to this since the beginning of humanity. How do you ensure a good leader? That's basically the whole point of democracy or monarcy or confusium for that matter. We are looking to create a system where decent leaders are churned out automatically.

Truth is, humanity haven't found yet the answer. We thought we did - democracy seemed to have addressed that problem, except that it didn't. All it did was to ensure that populists are elected. And populists make lousy rulers, because populists care way too much about how people think of him, rather than how to actually deal with problems at hand. Said populists also readily go into the pockets of plutocrats, who aren't elected anyway. In the end, the plutocrats controls the real power unchallenged, and the populists keep up the muppet shows.

So all democracy ever accomplished is that you will keep electing populists. Sure, there are a few gems occasionally - but does the rate differs from the CCP so much? To be honest, I have never even seen a population displaying the intelligence needed to think rationally for political matters. All you need is a good campaign fund, a cooperating media, and a handsome face - then viola, congratulations you have elected a monkey.

See president George W Bush, who managed to get elected twice. No one else on earth understood how that could have happened.

Same applies to China. What if they stop doing a good job? Then gawd help us.

[Lexington]

Doing nice things for yourself is not the point of governing. That's just putting your own narrow self-interest above everything else. So the second half of that sentence proves the first half.

Instead, I just cross my fingers and hope that the unelected leaders that propagate themselves over the years in the Chinese Communist Party are better than my own short-sighted self-interest.

You can vote out the corrupt idiots so you can elect corrupt idiots. Corruption cannot be resolved that way. The would-be corrupt idiots themselves need to identify with the government/state so that they can put the needs of the country before their own short-sighted and ill-gotten gains. A democracy can do no such thing. Democratic politicians mostly identify with their party, ideology, supporters, and voting blocs.

And despots don't have to identify with anyone, they can just shoot people in the streets if they disagree with them. As long as they do well everyone loves them (this thread evinces this) and when they don't, cultural revolution and such.

And that's the thing: the communist party has done a good job for a while. The problem, and the reason for democracy, is when they stop doing a good job. Then what do you do?

You wait.

I'll tell you how that story ends: You wait until you're shot.

Or you overthrow the government and HEY VOTING RIGHTS.

People have been looking for a solution to this since the beginning of humanity. How do you ensure a good leader? That's basically the whole point of democracy or monarcy or confusium for that matter. We are looking to create a system where decent leaders are churned out automatically.

Truth is, humanity haven't found yet the answer. We thought we did - democracy seemed to have addressed that problem, except that it didn't. All it did was to ensure that populists are elected. And populists make lousy rulers, because populists care way too much about how people think of him, rather than how to actually deal with problems at hand. Said populists also readily go into the pockets of plutocrats, who aren't elected anyway. In the end, the plutocrats controls the real power unchallenged, and the populists keep up the muppet shows.

So all democracy ever accomplished is that you will keep electing populists. Sure, there are a few gems occasionally - but does the rate differs from the CCP so much? To be honest, I have never even seen a population displaying the intelligence needed to think rationally for political matters. All you need is a good campaign fund, a cooperating media, and a handsome face - then viola, congratulations you have elected a monkey.

See president George W Bush, who managed to get elected twice. No one else on earth understood how that could have happened.

Same applies to China. What if they stop doing a good job? Then gawd help us.

I don't know if you noticed, but democracy conquered (most of) the world. The last big refuge of illiberalism is China. It pretty much is just China these days. Oh, and Russia. Because - and I know it is a ridiculous idea - people like to have some control over who is governing them.

If you truly want an iron boot crushing your face because "populism" and "plutocrats" you can have it there. I don't think it will last - even the history of China in recent decades includes bullshit like the Cultural Revolution that literally led to thousands of dead people. You may say that "things are different now" and they are, but the only thing stopping this from happening again is the violence of an informed people in China. You can either accept this violence as a matter of fact or you can give them the vote and stop pretending about this notion of "The Communist Party elites know best."

That is it.

[Saeko]

Instead, I just cross my fingers and hope that the unelected leaders that propagate themselves over the years in the Chinese Communist Party are better than my own short-sighted self-interest.

You don't have to hope. They are.

And despots don't have to identify with anyone, they can just shoot people in the streets if they disagree with them. As long as they do well everyone loves them (this thread evinces this) and when they don't, cultural revolution and such.

There's a huge difference between a mere despot who uses his country for his personal pleasure, and a real leader, who sacrifices everything for his country.

I'll tell you how that story ends: You wait until you're shot.

Or you overthrow the government and HEY VOTING RIGHTS.

If your country needs you to die, then the honorable thing to do is to pull the trigger yourself.

I don't know if you noticed, but democracy conquered (most of) the world. The last big refuge of illiberalism is China. It pretty much is just China these days. Oh, and Russia. Because - and I know it is a ridiculous idea - people like to have some control over who is governing them.

The US and other western countries are run mostly by unelected bureaucrats either in government or in the private sector. The elected officials do no governing themselves. Mostly, they're just spokespersons whose job it is to vote how they are told to vote, and to tell the citizenry that the decisions of the bureaucracy are ultimately best for everyone.

[ThirdTerm]

The US has always pushed for regime change in the rest of the world but for the sake of regional stability, keeping unsavoury regimes with poor human rights records in power could be a better option than the violent overthrow of such roguish regimes. The proxy war against the Assad regime produced ISIS and America's civilising mission overseas often resulted in unintended consequences. There is no doubt that the peoples in China and North Korea are politically oppressed by their Communist leaders but it's up to them to decide what to do with their countries. The CCP is unlikely to facilitate a smooth transition to democracy as any pro-democracy activists have been silenced in an extensive network of forced-labour camps, which the CCP recently pledged to abolish. We need to keep calling for more democratic reforms in China within the Communist system until the next generation of Communist leaders grudgingly abolish one-party rule in a peaceful transition of power to democratically-elected leaders.

[youtube]3jG0o9RJEbY[/youtube]

Government-run forced labor camps might seem like something from the movies, but for countries such as North Korea and China, it is a reality. North Korea is known to imprison individuals, and entire families, in forced labor camps. Shin Dong-hyuk, a survivor, born and raised in a North Korean forced labor camp, shares horrific stories of starvation, severe punishments for minor mistakes, and public executions. In China, around 190,000 people are forced to work in over 300 labor camps. Police officers often assign prison sentences without allowing people their day in court. Prisoners are forced to work anywhere from a few months to four years in labor camps without ever having a trial or proper appeal processes.
http://blog.slaveryfootprint.org/post/52789119244/not-just-a-sad-movie-plot

China's Communist Party unveiled legal reforms on Thursday aimed at giving judges more independence and limiting local officials' influence over courts, but it made no mention of the fate of its former domestic security chief who is under investigation for corruption. The moves, made at a closed-door meeting of the ruling party's elite, are pivotal to the workings of China's market economy, the world's second largest. They come at a time when slowing growth raises the prospect of more commercial disputes. The measures also reflect worries by China's leaders about rising social unrest in recent years. Anger over land grabs, corruption and pollution - issues often left unresolved by the courts - have resulted in violent clashes between police and residents, threatening social stability.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/10/23/uk-china-politics-law-idUKKCN0IC1HR20141023