17 ms·

How the West Got China Wrong

264 points by sampo 9y ago

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
nukeop 9y ago
The Chinese don't care about "dictatorship". Their lives are largely unaffected. Sure, sometimes a political rant gets deleted from the Internet, but it has little bearing on actual daily life. They openly mock western liberal values, they have their own slang for it. It seems so natural for the westerners that all countries will naturally drift towards democratic governments and more freedom, but it seems that some regions of the world just don't work that way. Just like Middle Eastern countries work best (as in, remain relatively stable) under military dictatorships, China seems to prefer authoritarian rule that at the same time doesn't really get in the way of them living their lives the way they're used to. It's a tough pill to swallow, but some nations just don't like democracy and don't want to implement it in any form.
- wz1000 9y ago
  > Just like Middle Eastern countries work best (as in, remain relatively stable) under military dictatorships This is extremely easy to say after any attempts at democracy in the middle east(Nasser and the Nasserites, Mossadegh, and now Rojava) are crushed by foreign powers and military dictatorships are actively supported since they are easier to control.
  - mmjaa 9y ago
    I concur - nation states under constant attack from imperial aggressors survive better under military dictatorships, precisely because that is what is required to survive during times of war. If the West would leave the Middle East alone for a decade, it is highly likely that we'd see a much different picture. Its very difficult to develop free, social, democratic society when the institutions which support that development are perpetually bombed into oblivion: universities, hospitals, infrastructure. Under times of intense duress, all humans survive better under military dictatorships. Its not just the Middle East. Not having had their infrastructure destroyed by outside forces, there isn't a single modern western democracy that we can use as a model to demonstrate this fact. If we stop bombing the Middle East, they'll have a chance to develop institutions which allow for their progress. Its just we, in the West, don't want to ever allow that to occur; it would interrupt our own development as Military-Industrial oligarchies.
    - ekianjo 9y ago
      > it is highly likely that we'd see a much different picture Highly unlikely since the Middle East is composed of hundred of tribes and other populations like the Kurds who want nothing to do with each others and will enter conflict whenever appropriate.
      - cbayram 9y ago
        You are implying that their attempts at defense and self-preservation against violent tyranny and genocide is a conscious collective choice of the people for more conflict rather than a reaction to their inhumane circumstances under such conditions. Everyone is capable of resisting arrest if you bend their arm back at a certain angle. Kurds have been continuously in that existential conflict long before the gulf wars. Their identity has been systemically under attack by brutal military dictatorships and nationalism for over a century now. Self-determination, survival and freedom from tyranny has always been their motivation. One does not have the option to choose when homicide knocks on one's front door. Kurds, most people of the Middle East and humanity in general want peaceful coexistence, progress, freedom and live productive lives. However, inorganic oscillations due to oppressive force and might wreak havoc in reaching any sustainable equilibrium.
    - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
      We leave Saudi Arabia alone and that has hardly turned into a democratic beacon. I really don't understand all this self flagellation in the West about the Middle East, we got drawn into these places because they are basket cases.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - SZJX 9y ago
        You do realize that Saudi is the biggest ally of the US in the region and it starts all the wars/carries on its domestic affairs however it pleases, with US backing, right?
    - 9y ago
- wkz 9y ago
  The same argument could have been made about Europe not so long ago. I think one difference is that back then the playing field was more equal. Military power was roughly equal to the number of people you had fighting on your side. Fighter Jets, Aircraft Carriers, Tanks, Drones, Nukes changes that to military power being equal to your economic power. Meaning that authoritarian governments are much harder to displace if they have enough economic power. > Their lives are largely unaffected. This might be true for a large portion of the population. That does not justify treating the rest as enemies of the state. Not allowing people the freedom to speak their mind is never moral.
  - mcny 9y ago
    How would life improve for "minorities" in a democracy? Imagine China PR became a democracy. Would they keep the promises they made to Hong Kong? UK is democratic. The current prime minister TM is from the same political party as her predecessor DC but nobody even talks about the promises made at the vote for creating an independent Wales.
    - Wildgoose 9y ago
      There were no promises made for Welsh Independence. What are you talking about?
      - mcny 9y ago
        Sorry. I was thinking Scotland. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/22/david-cameron-scottish-vow-smith-commission https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/22/david-... https://archive.fo/ekq26 https://archive.fo/ekq26
        hardlianotion 9y ago
        Not true. SNP talk about it all the time. "The Vow" is highly contentious. What you believe was promised largely depends on what side of the nationalist divide you sit on.
- oh-kumudo 9y ago
  > The Chinese don't care about "dictatorship". Not true for every Chinese person. They can't do anything about it, or in a more accurate account, they FEEL they can't do anything about it, is more universally agreed. Cynicism is deeply rooted in the young Chinese today, maybe the fear facing a gigantic state machine alone is too real, and the fact their have more options than their parents' generation is also real, thus rather than confronting the problem, they embrace escapism and showing compliance on the surface.
  - SZJX 9y ago
    Cynicism is one thing but this ideological matter is another. Many (I'd say even the majority of the youth) do believe that any radical change right now is likely to do more harm than good. Of course they also have a lot of dissatisfaction about the society but that doesn't automatically mean they want western democracy imposed upon the country. i.e. they also don't believe that "western democracy" would be a solution. Those two things have very little to do with each other.
- ekianjo 9y ago
  > Just like Middle Eastern countries work best (as in, remain relatively stable) under military dictatorships Such a ridiculous claim which shows your lack of understanding of the Middle East. The Middle East is not composed of countries, all the borders on the map were artificially created by colonial powers and the only political structure that existed before was simply a tribal one. So you don't go from nomad tribes to democratic regimes in one step.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >So you don't go from nomad tribes to democratic regimes in one step. That doesn't exactly contradict what the parent said. If anything it supports it. Precisely because "you don't go from nomad tribes to democratic regimes in one step" modern "Middle Eastern countries work best (as in, remain relatively stable)" as non-democracies. >The Middle East is not composed of countries, all the borders on the map were artificially created by colonial powers That's true, but those artificially created countries are still all we have, and are still countries (states) in all senses of the world, and those are the parent was talking about.
    - ekianjo 9y ago
      > and are still countries (states) in all senses of the world, and those are the parent was talking about. What is true? If you ask locals they don't have any feeling of belonging to any larger-than-them nation, they clearly describe themselves by the community/tribe they come from. This is the only reality that matters.
      - coldtea 9y ago
        >If you ask locals they don't have any feeling of belonging to any larger-than-them nation, they clearly describe themselves by the community/tribe they come from. Rural locals? Because city locals, and increasingly rural locals as well, will feel like belonging to a larger-than-them nation. >This is the only reality that matters.* Obviously not. This might be the only reality they know, but in the outside world, the state they belong to, their government and the general national identity the have to live under matters as well. When such a state is at war with another state, it's not a tribal matter anymore.
- matthewmacleod 9y ago
  Count me among those who consider that to be a stepping stone on the way to liberal democracy. Authoritarianism is easy to support when the economy is booming and living standards are increasing. When this falters, which it inevitably will, then discontent will spread from a relatively small group of political discontents to the population at large, who will start to demand change. And that demand can be the pressure that tips the balance in favour of democratic rule.
  - sn41 9y ago
    It goes the other way as well. In recent history, right-wing fascist authoritarianism has risen when the economy turns bad. e.g. Nazi Germany, 1930s Italy. The Greek right wing groups are currently a non-negligible presence.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Authoritarianism is easy to support when the economy is booming and living standards are increasing. When this falters, which it inevitably will, then discontent will spread from a relatively small group of political discontents to the population at large, who will start to demand change. And that demand can be the pressure that tips the balance in favour of democratic rule. If anything, history has taught us the reverse. Nazi Germany became that way exactly because "living standards" were decreasing in the Weimar republic. And all those Latin American countries with low living standards had (and some have) mostly dictatorships and compromised "democracies".
    - matthewmacleod 9y ago
      That's definitely true too, so always a risk. At least we could conclude that economic pressure can be a driver for change.
- lyrachord 9y ago
  When China created great and brilliant civ, the west was just at savages age! Dictator? how to define? who define? Even an emperor, one must obey the HuaXia tradition. If modeling by math, China has no dictatorship. Deny as you can, no matter, because China has the one and only consecutive history! No matter, Chinan is creating and making there glories.
- theklub 9y ago
  All of them? There is a billion+ of them and they all agree?
  - musage 9y ago
    The ones that don't can't very well speak up, so people will keep claiming this. Anyways, the amount of people who accept something doesn't change my judgement of the thing they accept, the quality of the thing they accept changes my judgement of those who accept it.
  - nukeop 9y ago
    With 1.5 billion people you could find some who disagree with literally anything you could say about the situation in their country or about the world in general, I'm talking about the general sentiment.
- SZJX 9y ago
  I would argue that China is just becoming like another US, which is depressing. The US is just a plutocracy and is hardly much more democratic than China. Some European countries do have better democracies. I can only hope that they are able to last for a while still.
wz1000 9y ago
"I think today the world is asking for a real alternative. Would you like to live in a world where the only alternative is either anglo-saxon neoliberalism or Chinese-Singaporean capitalism with Asian values? I claim if we do nothing we will gradually approach a kind of a new type of authoritarian society. Here I see the world historical importance of what is happening today in China. Until now there was one good argument for capitalism: sooner or later it brought a demand for democracy... What I'm afraid of is with this capitalism with Asian values, we get a capitalism much more efficient and dynamic than our western capitalism. But I don't share the hope of my liberal friends - give them ten years, [and there will be] another Tiananmen Square demonstration - no, the marriage between capitalism and democracy is over." - Slavoj Zizek
- oh-kumudo 9y ago
  Truth is, China/Singapore/South Korea/Japan will all run into severe population problem. And those societies all have homogeneous ethnical profile, that it is impossible to use immigration to solve this problem. What is so good about those Asian capitalism that those countries, after adopting this model, are all on course of their national suicide? It is clearly this model cannot even sustain itself, the prosperity it demonstrates is probably just a intermediate state before impending, pro-longed decline.
- ekianjo 9y ago
  > one good argument for capitalism: sooner or later it brought a demand for democracy... Nope, capitalism is an economic system, not to be confounded with other types of Freedom. Capitalism is the ability of freely trade private property, among other things. In the West we tend to think it goes hand in hand with Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Press and other liberties, but it does not have to. However, if Individual Freedom is the goal of your political system, then you will have Capitalism as well (the US is a good case since the constitution is clearly about the ultimate protection of individual liberties, even before the State).
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Nope, capitalism is an economic system, not to be confounded with other types of Freedom. Capitalism is the ability of freely trade private property, among other things. In the West we tend to think it goes hand in hand with Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Press and other liberties, but it does not have to. Exactly -- and all this obscures how those things came to be: with fierce struggle from the lower classes (workers, women, blacks, etc.) in most cases, handed over to the patricians of the state in others (e.g. US Declaration of Independence and so on) and spread more widely later. Not from the system for running the economy. Heck, Hayek, for one, a champion of capitalism, was in bed with Pinochet. And one of the things western countries did when they entered capitalism, was to conquer and enslave 2/3rds of the world in their colonies. So much for democracy.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
wasx 9y ago
Capitalist liberal societies will always peg communist countries wrong, because in liberal societies there is a fundamental lack of understanding about Communism. Which is quite obviously the guiding force of Communist countries. Understand Communism (and I mean genuinely understand it, not this Red Scare, Fox news ignorance you've been force fed your whole life) and you will understand Communist countries. It's really not a tough concept.
- ekianjo 9y ago
  > guiding force of Communist countries. Oh yeah like Cambodia and Pol Pot? What a guiding "force"!!
  - pabloski 9y ago
    You talk about Cambodia and Pol Pot. Do you want to talk about Guantanamo too? Or the secret CIA prisons in Poland, Romania and the Czech republic? Come on, the USA is the least liberal and democratic ( in the true sense of the word ) country in the world. It is a plutocracy dressed as a democracy, where he people vote for the puppet du jour and the deep state runs the show under each and every administration.
    - ekianjo 9y ago
      > You talk about Cambodia and Pol Pot. Do you want to talk about Guantanamo too? Or the secret CIA prisons in Poland, Romania and the Czech republic? This is literally nothing compared to what Pol Pot did. Pol pot killed millions on Cambodians (look https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge#Crimes_against_humanity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge#Crimes_against_hum...) just on ridiculous basis like "having a minimum education", and being of another ethnicity. The country is now in ruin after decades of his regime. A poor example to argue about.
    - sdwa 9y ago
      > the USA is the least liberal and democratic ( in the true sense of the word ) country in the world You cannot really believe this. Such ridiculous hyperbole does your argument no favours. North Korea? More liberal than the USA? Please.
igravious 9y ago
Thomas Hobbes would have approved. Famously in the Leviathan he argued for a sovereign commonwealth, a sort of autocratic monarchical rule with no separation of powers. In order that the system be stable freedom of expression is subordinated to the sovereign as is the system of law an the free press. Hobbes's Leviathan is China. Because Hobbes lived through a very tumultuous period of strife and conflict what he optimised for is stability and peace and prosperity at the expense of individual freedoms like the ability to choose one's destiny through either representative democracy or direct democracy. If the lives of the vast majority of Chinese are improving, who is to say their system is morally wrong? In fairness, the West only has itself to blame. Nobody with an honest heart can look at the post-colonial period and say that the West has not meddled in the affairs of other sovereign states. Also, many of the West's so-called republics and democracies are very hollow and corrupt often veering towards plutocracy, the system of law and political legislation is controlled by money and so corporate lobbying and eventually even political capture by corporations is rife. Workers rights are trampled at home and abroad though international agreements. Corporations evade paying taxes, they pollute the environment, collective bargaining is seen as a communist horror rather a democratic good. The West is in no position to point fingers. That's what gets my goat up. Who the fuck do we think we are that we can tell others how to run their lives. What fucking gall. After all we've done? And we wonder why others respond indignantly and with contempt. I don't blame them. Get your own house in order first as Peterson says. No, the correct response the Xi's power grab is not a suicidal arms race or political pressure. The correct response is to make the West an example others want to follow. We could start by taking back democracy by making citizen rule more direct so that people feel empowered. Let's move to the Swiss model. Let's reform the courts so that everybody has a fair chance, not the just the wealthy–it does not matter a whit if everybody is equal before the eyes of the law in theory if in practice they are not. We need to counter the evil of nationalism. We need to be sympathetic towards migrants. We need better separation of powers and we need to reject all forms of fundamentalism. Identity politics is a side-show, the arc of history is clear. Most importantly I think is that we need to place real limits on social media companies and we have to dismantle global surveillance, this is an evil so large it boggles the mind. We have to figure out how to combat rising economic inequality! We really do. They built Leviathan, we built the Panopticon. I recognise the freedoms we do have, such as my ability to criticise the system without repercussion, though if you agitate too much various agencies may open up a file on you.
cmplxconjugate 9y ago
I think a common flaw in these kinds of bold statements is the use of the phrase “The West”. There exists a multitude of different nations, each with different political structures and vastly different social opinions but, most importantly, different national objectives vested in China. The idea that business from the USA, UK, and, other nations in the West all “wanted democracy” is blatantly not true. They wanted profit and success via the penetration of a huge potential market. Democracy? No, fair treatment. The idea that the general public wanted a democracy in China is silly also. Most people are exposed to a very warped viewpoint of China, and I would argue, all people want is that their nation remains great, their jobs remain stable and their economic future is secure. Most average people I speak to (UK) still ask if if people eat dog meat and proclaim China is communist. The strongest case for “wanting democracy” is most likely in the political sphere for western nations. The strength of cooperative democratic governments is weakened when an outside nation is playing by its own rules, gaining advantages that members could be envious of. Having lived in China and having Chinese as my second language, I find recent events deeply troubling. The recent US-Taiwan travel agreement and new campaign for a referendum vote for independence on the 6th April is just adding to the anxiety. It’s an uncertain time, but I certainly agree that clear and hard rulings need to be made to ensure fairness between trading nations.
- manmal 9y ago
  > Most average people I speak to (UK) still ask if if people eat dog meat and proclaim China is communist. What do you answer? We have a saying in Austria that Chinese eat everything that throws a shadow (I don’t approve of this, just recount), and I as an uninformed person don’t know what to call it instead of communism (sure, not the traditional kind).
  - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
    > don’t know what to call it instead of communism I would describe China's economy system as capitalism. There is however the caveat that the government has a history with interfering with private ownership to pursue its interests, and their law has a history of approving that. This is different from e.g. the USA where the law is very propetive of private ownership and the law usually sides with it against the government. I would say that with respect to this metric Russia and the EU are somewhere in between.
anvandare 9y ago
The great mistake was in thinking "liberal western-style democracies" were the natural end-state of human societies, and that all states are historically determined to reach this point sooner or later. That the West was both Exceptional and Normal at the same time. This was pride. Then there were those who didn't care about the human rights issue and just wanted to make money, who thought they could use China as a massive cheap factory forever. Never thinking (or caring) that China could one day surpass us and turn the tables. This was greed.
- coffeeacc 9y ago
  A sort of naive liberal narcissism. Or happy go lucky. If I'm nice then everyone else will be nice. And I'll take that smile at face value. Alas, the world's a big place.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    On the bright side, it seems like some people here are finally waking up to the fact that China may soon be imposing it's will on the world. The Economist must be very influential.
- corey_moncure 9y ago
  Behind western capitalism is a long tapestry of human exploitation punctuated by periods of total war. Pre 18th Century there was slavery. Then when that became unpalatable we moved to colonialism. Finally we have used modern globalism and information technology to abstract the exploitation out of sight.
  - coffeeacc 9y ago
    "Behind western capitalism is a long tapestry of human exploitation punctuated by periods of total war." Behind numerous cultures is a long tapestry of human exploitation punctuated by periods of total war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Musl... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery
dcahill-ieee 9y ago
Every comment here is from a bot, some human, some not.
lfischer 9y ago
I feel this article undermines a stand for ‘democratic freedoms, rights and the rule of law’ as it conflates the former with abiding by ‘Western’ rules in international trade and politics and even respecting US military superiority (!).
dalbasal 9y ago
I think we’ve been late to re-examine some of the ideological memes from eh 80s-90s, which formed as the Soviet Union failed. In a nutshell, it was triumphalist. The Soviet Union, was oppressive, had a failed economy, it’s people wanted out.. wanted democracy, rights, capitalism. All the aspects of soviet failure (and the West’s success) were pinned in the “ideology” or system of government. Free markets, liberal democracy, independent courts, late night talk shows… These were all taken as a single system, which beat out a rival system. Looking back… Do we think that if the US had a Leninist revolution 100 years ago and Russia had had Tatcher & Churchill, that everything would be reversed. We see countries succeeding and failing regardless of clear ideological links. Implementation is usually more important than ideas. Stalinism was a very bad implementation. China’s last generation was a good one. The ideological underpinnings… less important. Anyway… the major & minor powers run almost identical economic systems these days. China, US, Russia, Japan, EU, UK… “Large Corporations”, almost sums up the system. At the scales modern corporations live on, the concept of free markets is fairly watered down. Banking, real estate (housing), transport, education… there are no free markets here. Elsewhere in the economy (e.g. consumer tech), oligopolies run the show. China has inched its way over to an almost identical economic system. I think the west has taken a few steps towards china’s. They’ll “intervene” more (like using the great firewall to keep out foreign competition), but … meh .. China runs a local monopoly rather than adopting the international one. It’s not really a big deal, economically. Basically, the economic system of china is the same as the west’s. Neither are very similar to the ideological systems they pay lip services to. Also, free markets don’t exist within companies. Companies are “islands of planning.” Well, the corporations are continents these days. Inside a company, totalitarianism is perfectly acceptable in Ohio, just like it is in Xiamen. When it comes to linking western rule-of-law, rights-centric constitutions and such to economic success… I’m not sure that link is really there. I think this was triumphalism and wishful thinking. Anyway, Russia accepted a lot of western systems. They have a free-ish market, a democratic constitutions. Yet, Putin is running yet again. The betting odds are currently @ 1/500 of him winning. My TLDR point is that the ideological lens is very, very foggy. It distorts our view of the world with easy-to-digest narratives and categories, but it really doesn’t describe the world. We need to drop this cold war mentality. I was 7 years old when the Berlin wall came down, why am I still thinking in these terms!!
neves 9y ago
It looks like the "Western" does not like any other sovereignty country. Any of the phrases below from the article can be applied to the USA: Though people’s personal lives remain relatively free, he is creating a surveillance state to monitor discontent and deviance. Meanwhile, foreign businesses are profitable but miserable, because commerce always seems to be on ___’s terms. The initiative asks countries to accept ____-based dispute-resolution. Should today’s ___ norms frustrate ___ ambition, this mechanism could become an alternative. Putting up with misbehaviour today in the hope that engagement will make ____ better tomorrow does not make sense. ______ societies should seek to shed light on links between independent foundations, even student groups, and the ____ state.
- jonathanstrange 9y ago
  As somebody else said in this thread, equating the USA with 'Western countries' in general is distorting reality. Most 'Western' countries are very different from the US. But I see how the equation 'Western world=USA' serves people well rhetorically if they want to make a case against democracy without clearly saying so. The point is that there are many different democracies and the USA is not and never was a poster example of it. Some have argued that the US is more of an oligarchic republic based on the example of ancient Rome rather than a modern democracy. However, the fact that people like Noam Chomsky who make this critique can freely live and talk in the US readily tells you how misleading it is to ride on popular anti-American sentiment when it is done on behalf of a country where critics are simply imprisoned.
  - saas_co_de 9y ago
    > equating the USA with 'Western countries' This is an article in a British magazine. Why blame the US? > people like Noam Chomsky who make this critique can freely live and talk in the US readily tells you how misleading it is In the US freedom of speech is part of the system of control. It is a safety valve that releases social pressure to prevent explosive revolutionary outbursts. The rulers of the US are no less dictatorial, they are just more sophisticated in their understanding of social control.
chiefalchemist 9y ago
Got it wrong? That's over-stating it quite a bit. Sure, that was the spin to get a toe hold, but ultimately the West's Capitalists saw massive opportunity, and nothing else. Long to short, 30 - 40 years ago the media ALWAYS referred to China as Communist China. I can't remember the last time I heard that phrase. That's no accident. Perhaps the politicians got it wrong. That's no surprise. They're (pardon the editorial) just stupid hand puppets anyway. But the elite capitalist? They were spot on. Just look at how the income inequality gap has widened. Again, no accident. p.s. If anything, China suckered the West, believing it could influence the West's structure, more than the other way around.
- barrkel 9y ago
  China didn't abandon communism (as in command and control economy, vs market economy) until 1978, so it's hardly a surprise that 40 years ago it was always Communist China - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    I understand that. My point is, after years of shoving must-fear-the-Commies down the minds of the American (/West) people, the prefixed was dropped because it didn't fit the narrative; because now there was money to be made. Which goes back to my original point. The only ppl who got it wrong were the politicians, and they're idiots anyway. No surprise. Yeah, they're still communist. But you'd never know it.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  China refers to itself as being communist. Heck, it is even run by the Communist Party of China. How is it western media bias to call china communist?
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    They don't anymore. That's my point. Now that the big money has rolled in, it doesn't want to be perceived as collaborating with the reds. Ao the media drops the prefix and the money keeps piling up. The language is no accident.
mark_l_watson 9y ago
Great article, makes me glad I now subscribe to the economist. It is interesting how elites in China use a different method of population control than the elites in the USA. Here, a well run propaganda machine comprised of MSNBC and Fox News effectively split the US population into two factions that disrespect each other and thus can’t cooperate while our freedoms, economic and political, are reduced. In China, they use a dictatorship that is effective enough in providing a good lifestyle so mostly young people there don’t complain too much. Sorry if I am oversimplifying, but at a TLDR, that is how I view things.
- zeth___ 9y ago
  When you put it that way it doesn't sound that bad.
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  >>In China, they use a dictatorship that is effective enough in providing a good lifestyle so mostly young people there don’t complain too much. This is not correct. There are plenty of people complaining. It’s just that they are censored and silenced.
antirez 9y ago
The article sounds like if the opening of the China-Western worlds relationship was something thought in these terms. But I have the feeling it was more the result of economical reciprocal interests among many actors.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
room271 9y ago
I have a feeling people are being a bit short-termist here. We can judge whether all roads lead to democracy/liberalism in 30-50 years but not yet. In the meantime, my personal opinion is that China is heading for disaster somewhere along the road if they don't liberalise increasingly over time.
- SZJX 9y ago
  Xi is actively giving more power to the market. In fact he's been compared to Ronald Reagan. It's just that he indeed implements quite a lot of surveillance measures as well. China is becoming like the US in a lot of aspects. Is the US society a shambles? Of course. But even with the rise of Trump people can hardly see a "disaster" or a major upheaval coming. The established interest is just way too strong. The Chinese leadership is much smarter and pragmatic than many western media and elites would imagine them to be. Doom-sayers have been there for a few decades, but China is still booming.
SZJX 9y ago
This is just such a nonsensical ideological piece without any regard to facts, which are always much more intricate and delicate than what simple lofty words such as "capitalism", "democracy", "dictatorship" etc. can cover. First, Xi is known precisely for his pro-market reforms and has been compared to Ronald Reagan for this. Under Xi's reign, the benefits for public servants have been drastically cut and many formerly commonplace practices will now be considered as corruption and land you in deep troubles. Therefore, many have been simply abandoning posts in the public sector and have gone into the private sector. If anything, China is accelerating on its path to become another US. Basically everything is modeled after the US society, and Xi wants to put everything into "the hands of the market". Depending on who you ask it's either fantastic (for the conservatives) or disastrous (for the leftists who much favor the European model of governments). But in no way will there be more restrictions on capitalism and stronger "government rule" out there. Xi wanting to stay on to continue his reforms doesn't automatically mean he wants to curb the market and expand the government. Exactly the contrary is happening. Drawing conclusions automatically from ideological grounds is just ridiculous. Second, many mature so-called western "democracies" perfectly allow one person in power for many years. Merkel is desperately trying to start her fourth term right now, and German economy has been always booming under her reign. Another obvious example (though not really a "western democracy" of course) is Singapore. China is even "more democratic" than Singapore in that the leadership is never passed on to a family member. Yet where are the criticisms against Singapore in the mainstream media during all these years? Zero, simply because Singapore is considered a strategic partner of the US while China a rising competitor, enemy. Could the media and western governments be even more hypocritical than that? Such double standards is quite some feat. Again, Xi's wanting to stay on doesn't automatically mean that China is going to be plunged into a reign of terror and chaos. Nobody can predict how his measures turn out to be, but to say that it's destined for failure and using "dictatorship" which implies something similar to North Korea or some Central American country (its brutal regime supported by the CIA and US politicians all the time, of course), is just laughable. Xi is indeed coming up with some measures that one may call authoritarian such as video surveillance coupled with facial recognition systems everywhere. But so is the US, especially after 911, with the massive overreach of government into civil lives. I sincerely don't think the US is much more a "democracy" than China is. There are some truer democracies among the European countries, which should indeed be protected. I am quite horrified witnessing the transformation of China into another US right now, but I'm afraid that cannot be stopped and the western political establishments would be better off thinking how to cope under a new world order instead of trying their best to deny or distort such a fact with such double standards thinly coated with ideological nonsense, as always.

264 points by sampo 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

The Chinese don't care about "dictatorship". Their lives are largely unaffected. Sure, sometimes a political rant gets deleted from the Internet, but it has little bearing on actual daily life. They openly mock western liberal values, they have their own slang for it. It seems so natural for the westerners that all countries will naturally drift towards democratic governments and more freedom, but it seems that some regions of the world just don't work that way. Just like Middle Eastern countries work best (as in, remain relatively stable) under military dictatorships, China seems to prefer authoritarian rule that at the same time doesn't really get in the way of them living their lives the way they're used to. It's a tough pill to swallow, but some nations just don't like democracy and don't want to implement it in any form.

wz1000 9y ago
> Just like Middle Eastern countries work best (as in, remain relatively stable) under military dictatorships This is extremely easy to say after any attempts at democracy in the middle east(Nasser and the Nasserites, Mossadegh, and now Rojava) are crushed by foreign powers and military dictatorships are actively supported since they are easier to control.
- mmjaa 9y ago
  I concur - nation states under constant attack from imperial aggressors survive better under military dictatorships, precisely because that is what is required to survive during times of war. If the West would leave the Middle East alone for a decade, it is highly likely that we'd see a much different picture. Its very difficult to develop free, social, democratic society when the institutions which support that development are perpetually bombed into oblivion: universities, hospitals, infrastructure. Under times of intense duress, all humans survive better under military dictatorships. Its not just the Middle East. Not having had their infrastructure destroyed by outside forces, there isn't a single modern western democracy that we can use as a model to demonstrate this fact. If we stop bombing the Middle East, they'll have a chance to develop institutions which allow for their progress. Its just we, in the West, don't want to ever allow that to occur; it would interrupt our own development as Military-Industrial oligarchies.
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    > it is highly likely that we'd see a much different picture Highly unlikely since the Middle East is composed of hundred of tribes and other populations like the Kurds who want nothing to do with each others and will enter conflict whenever appropriate.
    - cbayram 9y ago
      You are implying that their attempts at defense and self-preservation against violent tyranny and genocide is a conscious collective choice of the people for more conflict rather than a reaction to their inhumane circumstances under such conditions. Everyone is capable of resisting arrest if you bend their arm back at a certain angle. Kurds have been continuously in that existential conflict long before the gulf wars. Their identity has been systemically under attack by brutal military dictatorships and nationalism for over a century now. Self-determination, survival and freedom from tyranny has always been their motivation. One does not have the option to choose when homicide knocks on one's front door. Kurds, most people of the Middle East and humanity in general want peaceful coexistence, progress, freedom and live productive lives. However, inorganic oscillations due to oppressive force and might wreak havoc in reaching any sustainable equilibrium.
  - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
    We leave Saudi Arabia alone and that has hardly turned into a democratic beacon. I really don't understand all this self flagellation in the West about the Middle East, we got drawn into these places because they are basket cases.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - SZJX 9y ago
      You do realize that Saudi is the biggest ally of the US in the region and it starts all the wars/carries on its domestic affairs however it pleases, with US backing, right?
  - 9y ago
wkz 9y ago
The same argument could have been made about Europe not so long ago. I think one difference is that back then the playing field was more equal. Military power was roughly equal to the number of people you had fighting on your side. Fighter Jets, Aircraft Carriers, Tanks, Drones, Nukes changes that to military power being equal to your economic power. Meaning that authoritarian governments are much harder to displace if they have enough economic power. > Their lives are largely unaffected. This might be true for a large portion of the population. That does not justify treating the rest as enemies of the state. Not allowing people the freedom to speak their mind is never moral.
- mcny 9y ago
  How would life improve for "minorities" in a democracy? Imagine China PR became a democracy. Would they keep the promises they made to Hong Kong? UK is democratic. The current prime minister TM is from the same political party as her predecessor DC but nobody even talks about the promises made at the vote for creating an independent Wales.
  - Wildgoose 9y ago
    There were no promises made for Welsh Independence. What are you talking about?
    - mcny 9y ago
      Sorry. I was thinking Scotland. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/22/david-cameron-scottish-vow-smith-commission https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/22/david-... https://archive.fo/ekq26 https://archive.fo/ekq26
      - hardlianotion 9y ago
        Not true. SNP talk about it all the time. "The Vow" is highly contentious. What you believe was promised largely depends on what side of the nationalist divide you sit on.
oh-kumudo 9y ago
> The Chinese don't care about "dictatorship". Not true for every Chinese person. They can't do anything about it, or in a more accurate account, they FEEL they can't do anything about it, is more universally agreed. Cynicism is deeply rooted in the young Chinese today, maybe the fear facing a gigantic state machine alone is too real, and the fact their have more options than their parents' generation is also real, thus rather than confronting the problem, they embrace escapism and showing compliance on the surface.
- SZJX 9y ago
  Cynicism is one thing but this ideological matter is another. Many (I'd say even the majority of the youth) do believe that any radical change right now is likely to do more harm than good. Of course they also have a lot of dissatisfaction about the society but that doesn't automatically mean they want western democracy imposed upon the country. i.e. they also don't believe that "western democracy" would be a solution. Those two things have very little to do with each other.
ekianjo 9y ago
> Just like Middle Eastern countries work best (as in, remain relatively stable) under military dictatorships Such a ridiculous claim which shows your lack of understanding of the Middle East. The Middle East is not composed of countries, all the borders on the map were artificially created by colonial powers and the only political structure that existed before was simply a tribal one. So you don't go from nomad tribes to democratic regimes in one step.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >So you don't go from nomad tribes to democratic regimes in one step. That doesn't exactly contradict what the parent said. If anything it supports it. Precisely because "you don't go from nomad tribes to democratic regimes in one step" modern "Middle Eastern countries work best (as in, remain relatively stable)" as non-democracies. >The Middle East is not composed of countries, all the borders on the map were artificially created by colonial powers That's true, but those artificially created countries are still all we have, and are still countries (states) in all senses of the world, and those are the parent was talking about.
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    > and are still countries (states) in all senses of the world, and those are the parent was talking about. What is true? If you ask locals they don't have any feeling of belonging to any larger-than-them nation, they clearly describe themselves by the community/tribe they come from. This is the only reality that matters.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >If you ask locals they don't have any feeling of belonging to any larger-than-them nation, they clearly describe themselves by the community/tribe they come from. Rural locals? Because city locals, and increasingly rural locals as well, will feel like belonging to a larger-than-them nation. >This is the only reality that matters.* Obviously not. This might be the only reality they know, but in the outside world, the state they belong to, their government and the general national identity the have to live under matters as well. When such a state is at war with another state, it's not a tribal matter anymore.
matthewmacleod 9y ago
Count me among those who consider that to be a stepping stone on the way to liberal democracy. Authoritarianism is easy to support when the economy is booming and living standards are increasing. When this falters, which it inevitably will, then discontent will spread from a relatively small group of political discontents to the population at large, who will start to demand change. And that demand can be the pressure that tips the balance in favour of democratic rule.
- sn41 9y ago
  It goes the other way as well. In recent history, right-wing fascist authoritarianism has risen when the economy turns bad. e.g. Nazi Germany, 1930s Italy. The Greek right wing groups are currently a non-negligible presence.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Authoritarianism is easy to support when the economy is booming and living standards are increasing. When this falters, which it inevitably will, then discontent will spread from a relatively small group of political discontents to the population at large, who will start to demand change. And that demand can be the pressure that tips the balance in favour of democratic rule. If anything, history has taught us the reverse. Nazi Germany became that way exactly because "living standards" were decreasing in the Weimar republic. And all those Latin American countries with low living standards had (and some have) mostly dictatorships and compromised "democracies".
  - matthewmacleod 9y ago
    That's definitely true too, so always a risk. At least we could conclude that economic pressure can be a driver for change.
lyrachord 9y ago
When China created great and brilliant civ, the west was just at savages age! Dictator? how to define? who define? Even an emperor, one must obey the HuaXia tradition. If modeling by math, China has no dictatorship. Deny as you can, no matter, because China has the one and only consecutive history! No matter, Chinan is creating and making there glories.
theklub 9y ago
All of them? There is a billion+ of them and they all agree?
- musage 9y ago
  The ones that don't can't very well speak up, so people will keep claiming this. Anyways, the amount of people who accept something doesn't change my judgement of the thing they accept, the quality of the thing they accept changes my judgement of those who accept it.
- nukeop 9y ago
  With 1.5 billion people you could find some who disagree with literally anything you could say about the situation in their country or about the world in general, I'm talking about the general sentiment.
SZJX 9y ago
I would argue that China is just becoming like another US, which is depressing. The US is just a plutocracy and is hardly much more democratic than China. Some European countries do have better democracies. I can only hope that they are able to last for a while still.

wz1000 9y ago

"I think today the world is asking for a real alternative. Would you like to live in a world where the only alternative is either anglo-saxon neoliberalism or Chinese-Singaporean capitalism with Asian values? I claim if we do nothing we will gradually approach a kind of a new type of authoritarian society. Here I see the world historical importance of what is happening today in China. Until now there was one good argument for capitalism: sooner or later it brought a demand for democracy... What I'm afraid of is with this capitalism with Asian values, we get a capitalism much more efficient and dynamic than our western capitalism. But I don't share the hope of my liberal friends - give them ten years, [and there will be] another Tiananmen Square demonstration - no, the marriage between capitalism and democracy is over." - Slavoj Zizek

oh-kumudo 9y ago
Truth is, China/Singapore/South Korea/Japan will all run into severe population problem. And those societies all have homogeneous ethnical profile, that it is impossible to use immigration to solve this problem. What is so good about those Asian capitalism that those countries, after adopting this model, are all on course of their national suicide? It is clearly this model cannot even sustain itself, the prosperity it demonstrates is probably just a intermediate state before impending, pro-longed decline.
ekianjo 9y ago
> one good argument for capitalism: sooner or later it brought a demand for democracy... Nope, capitalism is an economic system, not to be confounded with other types of Freedom. Capitalism is the ability of freely trade private property, among other things. In the West we tend to think it goes hand in hand with Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Press and other liberties, but it does not have to. However, if Individual Freedom is the goal of your political system, then you will have Capitalism as well (the US is a good case since the constitution is clearly about the ultimate protection of individual liberties, even before the State).
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Nope, capitalism is an economic system, not to be confounded with other types of Freedom. Capitalism is the ability of freely trade private property, among other things. In the West we tend to think it goes hand in hand with Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Press and other liberties, but it does not have to. Exactly -- and all this obscures how those things came to be: with fierce struggle from the lower classes (workers, women, blacks, etc.) in most cases, handed over to the patricians of the state in others (e.g. US Declaration of Independence and so on) and spread more widely later. Not from the system for running the economy. Heck, Hayek, for one, a champion of capitalism, was in bed with Pinochet. And one of the things western countries did when they entered capitalism, was to conquer and enslave 2/3rds of the world in their colonies. So much for democracy.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

wasx 9y ago

Capitalist liberal societies will always peg communist countries wrong, because in liberal societies there is a fundamental lack of understanding about Communism. Which is quite obviously the guiding force of Communist countries. Understand Communism (and I mean genuinely understand it, not this Red Scare, Fox news ignorance you've been force fed your whole life) and you will understand Communist countries. It's really not a tough concept.

ekianjo 9y ago
> guiding force of Communist countries. Oh yeah like Cambodia and Pol Pot? What a guiding "force"!!
- pabloski 9y ago
  You talk about Cambodia and Pol Pot. Do you want to talk about Guantanamo too? Or the secret CIA prisons in Poland, Romania and the Czech republic? Come on, the USA is the least liberal and democratic ( in the true sense of the word ) country in the world. It is a plutocracy dressed as a democracy, where he people vote for the puppet du jour and the deep state runs the show under each and every administration.
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    > You talk about Cambodia and Pol Pot. Do you want to talk about Guantanamo too? Or the secret CIA prisons in Poland, Romania and the Czech republic? This is literally nothing compared to what Pol Pot did. Pol pot killed millions on Cambodians (look https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge#Crimes_against_humanity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge#Crimes_against_hum...) just on ridiculous basis like "having a minimum education", and being of another ethnicity. The country is now in ruin after decades of his regime. A poor example to argue about.
  - sdwa 9y ago
    > the USA is the least liberal and democratic ( in the true sense of the word ) country in the world You cannot really believe this. Such ridiculous hyperbole does your argument no favours. North Korea? More liberal than the USA? Please.

igravious 9y ago

Thomas Hobbes would have approved. Famously in the Leviathan he argued for a sovereign commonwealth, a sort of autocratic monarchical rule with no separation of powers. In order that the system be stable freedom of expression is subordinated to the sovereign as is the system of law an the free press. Hobbes's Leviathan is China. Because Hobbes lived through a very tumultuous period of strife and conflict what he optimised for is stability and peace and prosperity at the expense of individual freedoms like the ability to choose one's destiny through either representative democracy or direct democracy. If the lives of the vast majority of Chinese are improving, who is to say their system is morally wrong? In fairness, the West only has itself to blame. Nobody with an honest heart can look at the post-colonial period and say that the West has not meddled in the affairs of other sovereign states. Also, many of the West's so-called republics and democracies are very hollow and corrupt often veering towards plutocracy, the system of law and political legislation is controlled by money and so corporate lobbying and eventually even political capture by corporations is rife. Workers rights are trampled at home and abroad though international agreements. Corporations evade paying taxes, they pollute the environment, collective bargaining is seen as a communist horror rather a democratic good. The West is in no position to point fingers. That's what gets my goat up. Who the fuck do we think we are that we can tell others how to run their lives. What fucking gall. After all we've done? And we wonder why others respond indignantly and with contempt. I don't blame them. Get your own house in order first as Peterson says. No, the correct response the Xi's power grab is not a suicidal arms race or political pressure. The correct response is to make the West an example others want to follow. We could start by taking back democracy by making citizen rule more direct so that people feel empowered. Let's move to the Swiss model. Let's reform the courts so that everybody has a fair chance, not the just the wealthy–it does not matter a whit if everybody is equal before the eyes of the law in theory if in practice they are not. We need to counter the evil of nationalism. We need to be sympathetic towards migrants. We need better separation of powers and we need to reject all forms of fundamentalism. Identity politics is a side-show, the arc of history is clear. Most importantly I think is that we need to place real limits on social media companies and we have to dismantle global surveillance, this is an evil so large it boggles the mind. We have to figure out how to combat rising economic inequality! We really do. They built Leviathan, we built the Panopticon. I recognise the freedoms we do have, such as my ability to criticise the system without repercussion, though if you agitate too much various agencies may open up a file on you.

cmplxconjugate 9y ago

I think a common flaw in these kinds of bold statements is the use of the phrase “The West”. There exists a multitude of different nations, each with different political structures and vastly different social opinions but, most importantly, different national objectives vested in China. The idea that business from the USA, UK, and, other nations in the West all “wanted democracy” is blatantly not true. They wanted profit and success via the penetration of a huge potential market. Democracy? No, fair treatment. The idea that the general public wanted a democracy in China is silly also. Most people are exposed to a very warped viewpoint of China, and I would argue, all people want is that their nation remains great, their jobs remain stable and their economic future is secure. Most average people I speak to (UK) still ask if if people eat dog meat and proclaim China is communist. The strongest case for “wanting democracy” is most likely in the political sphere for western nations. The strength of cooperative democratic governments is weakened when an outside nation is playing by its own rules, gaining advantages that members could be envious of. Having lived in China and having Chinese as my second language, I find recent events deeply troubling. The recent US-Taiwan travel agreement and new campaign for a referendum vote for independence on the 6th April is just adding to the anxiety. It’s an uncertain time, but I certainly agree that clear and hard rulings need to be made to ensure fairness between trading nations.

manmal 9y ago
> Most average people I speak to (UK) still ask if if people eat dog meat and proclaim China is communist. What do you answer? We have a saying in Austria that Chinese eat everything that throws a shadow (I don’t approve of this, just recount), and I as an uninformed person don’t know what to call it instead of communism (sure, not the traditional kind).
- fwdpropaganda 9y ago
  > don’t know what to call it instead of communism I would describe China's economy system as capitalism. There is however the caveat that the government has a history with interfering with private ownership to pursue its interests, and their law has a history of approving that. This is different from e.g. the USA where the law is very propetive of private ownership and the law usually sides with it against the government. I would say that with respect to this metric Russia and the EU are somewhere in between.

anvandare 9y ago

The great mistake was in thinking "liberal western-style democracies" were the natural end-state of human societies, and that all states are historically determined to reach this point sooner or later. That the West was both Exceptional and Normal at the same time. This was pride. Then there were those who didn't care about the human rights issue and just wanted to make money, who thought they could use China as a massive cheap factory forever. Never thinking (or caring) that China could one day surpass us and turn the tables. This was greed.

coffeeacc 9y ago
A sort of naive liberal narcissism. Or happy go lucky. If I'm nice then everyone else will be nice. And I'll take that smile at face value. Alas, the world's a big place.
- mistermann 9y ago
  On the bright side, it seems like some people here are finally waking up to the fact that China may soon be imposing it's will on the world. The Economist must be very influential.
corey_moncure 9y ago
Behind western capitalism is a long tapestry of human exploitation punctuated by periods of total war. Pre 18th Century there was slavery. Then when that became unpalatable we moved to colonialism. Finally we have used modern globalism and information technology to abstract the exploitation out of sight.
- coffeeacc 9y ago
  "Behind western capitalism is a long tapestry of human exploitation punctuated by periods of total war." Behind numerous cultures is a long tapestry of human exploitation punctuated by periods of total war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Musl... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

dcahill-ieee 9y ago

Every comment here is from a bot, some human, some not.

lfischer 9y ago

I feel this article undermines a stand for ‘democratic freedoms, rights and the rule of law’ as it conflates the former with abiding by ‘Western’ rules in international trade and politics and even respecting US military superiority (!).

dalbasal 9y ago

I think we’ve been late to re-examine some of the ideological memes from eh 80s-90s, which formed as the Soviet Union failed. In a nutshell, it was triumphalist. The Soviet Union, was oppressive, had a failed economy, it’s people wanted out.. wanted democracy, rights, capitalism. All the aspects of soviet failure (and the West’s success) were pinned in the “ideology” or system of government. Free markets, liberal democracy, independent courts, late night talk shows… These were all taken as a single system, which beat out a rival system. Looking back… Do we think that if the US had a Leninist revolution 100 years ago and Russia had had Tatcher & Churchill, that everything would be reversed. We see countries succeeding and failing regardless of clear ideological links. Implementation is usually more important than ideas. Stalinism was a very bad implementation. China’s last generation was a good one. The ideological underpinnings… less important. Anyway… the major & minor powers run almost identical economic systems these days. China, US, Russia, Japan, EU, UK… “Large Corporations”, almost sums up the system. At the scales modern corporations live on, the concept of free markets is fairly watered down. Banking, real estate (housing), transport, education… there are no free markets here. Elsewhere in the economy (e.g. consumer tech), oligopolies run the show. China has inched its way over to an almost identical economic system. I think the west has taken a few steps towards china’s. They’ll “intervene” more (like using the great firewall to keep out foreign competition), but … meh .. China runs a local monopoly rather than adopting the international one. It’s not really a big deal, economically. Basically, the economic system of china is the same as the west’s. Neither are very similar to the ideological systems they pay lip services to. Also, free markets don’t exist within companies. Companies are “islands of planning.” Well, the corporations are continents these days. Inside a company, totalitarianism is perfectly acceptable in Ohio, just like it is in Xiamen. When it comes to linking western rule-of-law, rights-centric constitutions and such to economic success… I’m not sure that link is really there. I think this was triumphalism and wishful thinking. Anyway, Russia accepted a lot of western systems. They have a free-ish market, a democratic constitutions. Yet, Putin is running yet again. The betting odds are currently @ 1/500 of him winning. My TLDR point is that the ideological lens is very, very foggy. It distorts our view of the world with easy-to-digest narratives and categories, but it really doesn’t describe the world. We need to drop this cold war mentality. I was 7 years old when the Berlin wall came down, why am I still thinking in these terms!!

neves 9y ago

It looks like the "Western" does not like any other sovereignty country. Any of the phrases below from the article can be applied to the USA: Though people’s personal lives remain relatively free, he is creating a surveillance state to monitor discontent and deviance. Meanwhile, foreign businesses are profitable but miserable, because commerce always seems to be on ___’s terms. The initiative asks countries to accept ____-based dispute-resolution. Should today’s ___ norms frustrate ___ ambition, this mechanism could become an alternative. Putting up with misbehaviour today in the hope that engagement will make ____ better tomorrow does not make sense. ______ societies should seek to shed light on links between independent foundations, even student groups, and the ____ state.

jonathanstrange 9y ago
As somebody else said in this thread, equating the USA with 'Western countries' in general is distorting reality. Most 'Western' countries are very different from the US. But I see how the equation 'Western world=USA' serves people well rhetorically if they want to make a case against democracy without clearly saying so. The point is that there are many different democracies and the USA is not and never was a poster example of it. Some have argued that the US is more of an oligarchic republic based on the example of ancient Rome rather than a modern democracy. However, the fact that people like Noam Chomsky who make this critique can freely live and talk in the US readily tells you how misleading it is to ride on popular anti-American sentiment when it is done on behalf of a country where critics are simply imprisoned.
- saas_co_de 9y ago
  > equating the USA with 'Western countries' This is an article in a British magazine. Why blame the US? > people like Noam Chomsky who make this critique can freely live and talk in the US readily tells you how misleading it is In the US freedom of speech is part of the system of control. It is a safety valve that releases social pressure to prevent explosive revolutionary outbursts. The rulers of the US are no less dictatorial, they are just more sophisticated in their understanding of social control.

chiefalchemist 9y ago

Got it wrong? That's over-stating it quite a bit. Sure, that was the spin to get a toe hold, but ultimately the West's Capitalists saw massive opportunity, and nothing else. Long to short, 30 - 40 years ago the media ALWAYS referred to China as Communist China. I can't remember the last time I heard that phrase. That's no accident. Perhaps the politicians got it wrong. That's no surprise. They're (pardon the editorial) just stupid hand puppets anyway. But the elite capitalist? They were spot on. Just look at how the income inequality gap has widened. Again, no accident. p.s. If anything, China suckered the West, believing it could influence the West's structure, more than the other way around.

barrkel 9y ago
China didn't abandon communism (as in command and control economy, vs market economy) until 1978, so it's hardly a surprise that 40 years ago it was always Communist China - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  I understand that. My point is, after years of shoving must-fear-the-Commies down the minds of the American (/West) people, the prefixed was dropped because it didn't fit the narrative; because now there was money to be made. Which goes back to my original point. The only ppl who got it wrong were the politicians, and they're idiots anyway. No surprise. Yeah, they're still communist. But you'd never know it.
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
China refers to itself as being communist. Heck, it is even run by the Communist Party of China. How is it western media bias to call china communist?
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  They don't anymore. That's my point. Now that the big money has rolled in, it doesn't want to be perceived as collaborating with the reds. Ao the media drops the prefix and the money keeps piling up. The language is no accident.

mark_l_watson 9y ago

Great article, makes me glad I now subscribe to the economist. It is interesting how elites in China use a different method of population control than the elites in the USA. Here, a well run propaganda machine comprised of MSNBC and Fox News effectively split the US population into two factions that disrespect each other and thus can’t cooperate while our freedoms, economic and political, are reduced. In China, they use a dictatorship that is effective enough in providing a good lifestyle so mostly young people there don’t complain too much. Sorry if I am oversimplifying, but at a TLDR, that is how I view things.

zeth___ 9y ago
When you put it that way it doesn't sound that bad.
enraged_camel 9y ago
>>In China, they use a dictatorship that is effective enough in providing a good lifestyle so mostly young people there don’t complain too much. This is not correct. There are plenty of people complaining. It’s just that they are censored and silenced.

antirez 9y ago

The article sounds like if the opening of the China-Western worlds relationship was something thought in these terms. But I have the feeling it was more the result of economical reciprocal interests among many actors.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

room271 9y ago

I have a feeling people are being a bit short-termist here. We can judge whether all roads lead to democracy/liberalism in 30-50 years but not yet. In the meantime, my personal opinion is that China is heading for disaster somewhere along the road if they don't liberalise increasingly over time.

SZJX 9y ago
Xi is actively giving more power to the market. In fact he's been compared to Ronald Reagan. It's just that he indeed implements quite a lot of surveillance measures as well. China is becoming like the US in a lot of aspects. Is the US society a shambles? Of course. But even with the rise of Trump people can hardly see a "disaster" or a major upheaval coming. The established interest is just way too strong. The Chinese leadership is much smarter and pragmatic than many western media and elites would imagine them to be. Doom-sayers have been there for a few decades, but China is still booming.

SZJX 9y ago

This is just such a nonsensical ideological piece without any regard to facts, which are always much more intricate and delicate than what simple lofty words such as "capitalism", "democracy", "dictatorship" etc. can cover. First, Xi is known precisely for his pro-market reforms and has been compared to Ronald Reagan for this. Under Xi's reign, the benefits for public servants have been drastically cut and many formerly commonplace practices will now be considered as corruption and land you in deep troubles. Therefore, many have been simply abandoning posts in the public sector and have gone into the private sector. If anything, China is accelerating on its path to become another US. Basically everything is modeled after the US society, and Xi wants to put everything into "the hands of the market". Depending on who you ask it's either fantastic (for the conservatives) or disastrous (for the leftists who much favor the European model of governments). But in no way will there be more restrictions on capitalism and stronger "government rule" out there. Xi wanting to stay on to continue his reforms doesn't automatically mean he wants to curb the market and expand the government. Exactly the contrary is happening. Drawing conclusions automatically from ideological grounds is just ridiculous. Second, many mature so-called western "democracies" perfectly allow one person in power for many years. Merkel is desperately trying to start her fourth term right now, and German economy has been always booming under her reign. Another obvious example (though not really a "western democracy" of course) is Singapore. China is even "more democratic" than Singapore in that the leadership is never passed on to a family member. Yet where are the criticisms against Singapore in the mainstream media during all these years? Zero, simply because Singapore is considered a strategic partner of the US while China a rising competitor, enemy. Could the media and western governments be even more hypocritical than that? Such double standards is quite some feat. Again, Xi's wanting to stay on doesn't automatically mean that China is going to be plunged into a reign of terror and chaos. Nobody can predict how his measures turn out to be, but to say that it's destined for failure and using "dictatorship" which implies something similar to North Korea or some Central American country (its brutal regime supported by the CIA and US politicians all the time, of course), is just laughable. Xi is indeed coming up with some measures that one may call authoritarian such as video surveillance coupled with facial recognition systems everywhere. But so is the US, especially after 911, with the massive overreach of government into civil lives. I sincerely don't think the US is much more a "democracy" than China is. There are some truer democracies among the European countries, which should indeed be protected. I am quite horrified witnessing the transformation of China into another US right now, but I'm afraid that cannot be stopped and the western political establishments would be better off thinking how to cope under a new world order instead of trying their best to deny or distort such a fact with such double standards thinly coated with ideological nonsense, as always.