4 ms·

> In my opinion, the main difference between China and the US is nationalism. And that's also what I think that slogan is indicative of. It also, I think, expla

> In my opinion, the main difference between China and the US is nationalism. And that's also what I think that slogan is indicative of. It also, I think, explains their government actions. Supporting their companies is not about nationalizing them, which implies a motivation of state driven control, but growing and improving Chinese companies on the national scene. I've noticed that a few times recently when comparing American and Chinese policies. In the United States we've made a cargo cult religion around individual freedom, to the point where we often don't do what's best for the country and society as a whole. The Chinese government seems much more concerned about making their country and society better as a whole.

jquery 9y ago
> cargo cult religion Unfairly dismissive of the deep philosophy involved in the founding of this country. There are many solid underpinnings of American individualism, whether you agree the principles or not.
- TangoTrotFox 9y ago
  I think the gulf between individualism and collectivism is more similar to what has become of left versus right, which is to say it's completely insufficient by itself. With left versus right it's now also critical to consider libertarian versus authoritarian. So too with individualism and collectivism, I think you need to also factor in nationalism versus globalism. The US was certainly driven by nationalism, but the individualism vs collectivism component is not clearly individualistic either. For instance in our founding, states were viewed as entities in and of themselves. Institutions like the senate and the electoral college are very clear reminders that the state was seen as more relevant than the individual. In either case today we've gone more individualistic and globalistic. This diminishes the strength of the state. And I think many see that as a positive today without considering that things we consider rights and privileges we take for granted are not inalienable, but a product of our nation which creates that inalienability. The reason you can burn a flag as a protest without being rounded up and summarily 'removed from society' one way or the other, as would happen in many parts of this world, is because of what that very flag represents. If we created a nation that was an aggregate of this world, it'd still be quite an awful place. This is in part why, though I'd hardly consider myself nationalistic, I think that keep our nations strong and independent is so crucial. I also find it trite that the push for extremes of globalism is largely coming from corporations and other power non-state entities. Guess who rules a society where the nation or state is secondary? Many would like to think it's the individual, but it's not. Globalism is analogous to union busting on the international scale. Many people were led to believe that unions were not in their best interest. That worked out well...
forapurpose 9y ago
> The Chinese government seems much more concerned about making their country and society better as a whole. They do what is best for themselves, which at times means doing what's best for the Communist Party. Suppressing dissent, denying Chinese people freedom and self-determination is only good for the people in power. In case someone wants to argue that authoritarianism provides better governance (which is BS anyway - if it's so great, then hold an election and people will vote for you; who are you to decide that it's so great for everyone else?), all the most wealthy, most stable countries in the world have those freedoms (Europe, the U.S.), including the most wealthy and stable parts of China (Taiwan and Hong Kong).
- jlarocco 9y ago
  > They do what is best for themselves, which at times means doing what's best for the Communist Party. Suppressing dissent, denying Chinese people freedom and self-determination is only good for the people in power. The United States is often nearly as bad as China on human rights. At least China is overt about it. Nobody denies they're watching everybody, but it took an NSA contractor leaking information to bring up the issue in the United States. For example, here's a story about 1300 people in jail >4 years with no trial: http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2018/04/imprisoning_people_4_years_wit.html http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2018/04/imprisoning_p... Here's a guy who spent 13 years in prison for having 2 joints: https://www.alternet.org/drugs/louisiana-man-13-years-prison-two-joints https://www.alternet.org/drugs/louisiana-man-13-years-prison... Our systems punish people for different things, but they're both pretty bad. > In case someone wants to argue that authoritarianism provides better governance (which is BS anyway - if it's so great, then hold an election and people will vote for you; who are you to decide that it's so great for everyone else?), all the most wealthy, most stable countries in the world have those freedoms (Europe, the U.S.), including the most wealthy and stable parts of China (Taiwan and Hong Kong). I'm not saying China's system is absolutely the best without any downsides, but in a lot of cases it's clear that what they're doing is good for nearly everybody. For example, when they cut off imports of foreign waste and when they build and maintain infrastructure to their rural regions. Likewise, there are many cases where the American system has results that are clearly bad for us, like paying our teachers so little that they strike or move away because nobody wants to pay extra taxes.

jquery 9y ago

> cargo cult religion Unfairly dismissive of the deep philosophy involved in the founding of this country. There are many solid underpinnings of American individualism, whether you agree the principles or not.

TangoTrotFox 9y ago
I think the gulf between individualism and collectivism is more similar to what has become of left versus right, which is to say it's completely insufficient by itself. With left versus right it's now also critical to consider libertarian versus authoritarian. So too with individualism and collectivism, I think you need to also factor in nationalism versus globalism. The US was certainly driven by nationalism, but the individualism vs collectivism component is not clearly individualistic either. For instance in our founding, states were viewed as entities in and of themselves. Institutions like the senate and the electoral college are very clear reminders that the state was seen as more relevant than the individual. In either case today we've gone more individualistic and globalistic. This diminishes the strength of the state. And I think many see that as a positive today without considering that things we consider rights and privileges we take for granted are not inalienable, but a product of our nation which creates that inalienability. The reason you can burn a flag as a protest without being rounded up and summarily 'removed from society' one way or the other, as would happen in many parts of this world, is because of what that very flag represents. If we created a nation that was an aggregate of this world, it'd still be quite an awful place. This is in part why, though I'd hardly consider myself nationalistic, I think that keep our nations strong and independent is so crucial. I also find it trite that the push for extremes of globalism is largely coming from corporations and other power non-state entities. Guess who rules a society where the nation or state is secondary? Many would like to think it's the individual, but it's not. Globalism is analogous to union busting on the international scale. Many people were led to believe that unions were not in their best interest. That worked out well...

forapurpose 9y ago

> The Chinese government seems much more concerned about making their country and society better as a whole. They do what is best for themselves, which at times means doing what's best for the Communist Party. Suppressing dissent, denying Chinese people freedom and self-determination is only good for the people in power. In case someone wants to argue that authoritarianism provides better governance (which is BS anyway - if it's so great, then hold an election and people will vote for you; who are you to decide that it's so great for everyone else?), all the most wealthy, most stable countries in the world have those freedoms (Europe, the U.S.), including the most wealthy and stable parts of China (Taiwan and Hong Kong).

jlarocco 9y ago
> They do what is best for themselves, which at times means doing what's best for the Communist Party. Suppressing dissent, denying Chinese people freedom and self-determination is only good for the people in power. The United States is often nearly as bad as China on human rights. At least China is overt about it. Nobody denies they're watching everybody, but it took an NSA contractor leaking information to bring up the issue in the United States. For example, here's a story about 1300 people in jail >4 years with no trial: http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2018/04/imprisoning_people_4_years_wit.html http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2018/04/imprisoning_p... Here's a guy who spent 13 years in prison for having 2 joints: https://www.alternet.org/drugs/louisiana-man-13-years-prison-two-joints https://www.alternet.org/drugs/louisiana-man-13-years-prison... Our systems punish people for different things, but they're both pretty bad. > In case someone wants to argue that authoritarianism provides better governance (which is BS anyway - if it's so great, then hold an election and people will vote for you; who are you to decide that it's so great for everyone else?), all the most wealthy, most stable countries in the world have those freedoms (Europe, the U.S.), including the most wealthy and stable parts of China (Taiwan and Hong Kong). I'm not saying China's system is absolutely the best without any downsides, but in a lot of cases it's clear that what they're doing is good for nearly everybody. For example, when they cut off imports of foreign waste and when they build and maintain infrastructure to their rural regions. Likewise, there are many cases where the American system has results that are clearly bad for us, like paying our teachers so little that they strike or move away because nobody wants to pay extra taxes.