6 ms·

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 lit

• 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.