6 ms·

Japan, however, at that point was a liberal democracy with rights and stuff. Can't say that about the PRC.

by curuinor 8y ago

jhwang5 8y ago
Hmm it's not a democracy in the traditional sense. A single party has been in power for 40+ years.
- twblalock 8y ago
  > Hmm it's not a democracy in the traditional sense. A single party has been in power for 40+ years. Thats not true. One party has been dominant over the past 40+ years because it won most of the elections, which are free and fair elections according to international standards. Plenty of opposition parties have been active the entire time, they just weren't popular enough to win. They are not suppressed or restricted or thrown in jail -- they just aren't able to convince the voters. There have been periods, including quite recently, when opposition parties held power. Their performance while in power caused the voters to vote for the dominant party next time.
- Symmetry 8y ago
  You're a bit out of date, the DPJ managed to get into office recently before losing to the LDP again.
- lkrubner 8y ago
  In the USA the Democrats held the House from 1954 to 1994, which is 40 years, but people felt the USA was still a democracy during this time. Even in competitive political systems, sometimes one party puts together a broad coalition that can hold power for decades.
  - twblalock 8y ago
    Another example is the UK Conservative Party holding power for 18 years from 1979 to 1997 by winning every election during that period. It would not have been reasonable to say the UK was not a democracy in that period -- it was just the case that the voters preferred one party the entire time.
ng12 8y ago
Exactly. China isn't scary, an oppressive authoritarian regime controlling the world economy is.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  To what extent does the mostly single party state of California influence the world economy?
  - garmaine 8y ago
    Non-sequitur?
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      Maybe for a privileged urban techie. There are people here in California who grouse about the state being an oppressive single-party state. There are certain rural and city people (both white and black) who have to behave differently and give extra thought to avoiding unwanted law enforcement scrutiny. There have been numerous articles written about how many rural California interests are under-represented. I have a friend who lives up north in the Sierras (who actually won an award for her work in social justice) who can't go to certain bars in her town, because someone might knife her over political disagreements. There is some unrest, oppression of the less powerful, and under-representation here in California. It's much better here than in many parts of the world, but it's there. Some of it is due to the lop-sided nature of politics here.
      - asveikau 8y ago
        > people here ... who grouse about the state being an oppressive single-party state. I'm pretty sure you can say that about most states. Either you have a blue state with a rural population that feels oppressed, or a red state with an urban population that feels oppressed, or pockets of people identifying with the less dominant party within both urban or rural areas. It doesn't fit neatly into 21st century American domestic political discourse (with emphasis since 2000 on red states vs. blue states), but we're really more interspersed than we believe, at varying proportions.
nostrademons 8y ago
It'll be interesting to see the political situation evolve in China. There's a popular perception in American mythology that liberal democracy causes prosperity, but if you look at economic history across many different cultures, the reverse seems to be more true: economic prosperity causes liberal democracy. As a growing middle class gains more economic power, they inevitably try to push for more political power, and because the country ceases to operate without them, they tend to get it. I suspect that the political situation for Xi Jinping and the CCP is actually a lot more tenuous than is publicized outside of China, and that they're investing so heavily in surveillance & control technologies because they're insecure. It wouldn't surprise me if we see a democratic revolution in China within a decade.
- JohnJamesRambo 8y ago
  I hope you are right. I never see any indications a democratic revolution is even on the radar there. Is it all hidden?
  - nostrademons 8y ago
    It would be, right? If the government cracks down on any dissident accused of fomenting revolution, the very last thing you would do is talk about revolution. I think any revolution is fairly unlikely while China continues to grow rapidly under the CCP, but if growth stutters or corruption becomes overwhelming (or if America collapses and stops buying Chinese goods), it could happen. The catalyst for most revolutions seems to be when people give up on trying to expand the pie and start stealing slices from less powerful countrymen, causing widespread resentment. I'm just thinking back to other revolutions that have occurred, though, and they usually take people outside the country by complete surprise. I was a kid in the 80s, and the Cold War was basically a fact of life. I had an international relations professor who was in the Pentagon when Gorbachev was deposed, they had just completed their 5-year geostrategic plan, and nowhere in the plan was the possibility that the USSR might not exist. Same with the Arab Spring - from the U.S, it was like "What the hell is happening?" Interestingly, it was not clear at the time of the American Revolution that it would result in a liberal democracy. It seems that the expectation at the time is that it would result in total anarchy (the way the Syrian Civil War has), with the colonists killing each other, and it almost did, and it wasn't until almost 15 years after Lexington & Concord that it was clear (with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution) that it wouldn't. And maybe that's the mechanism by which a wealthy & well-networked middle class leads to democracy: in states without it, a revolution collapses into anarchy and the elevation of a charismatic dictator, while with it the various interests need to negotiate and share power because each of them needs something that only the others can provide.
pesmhey 8y ago
And under our nuclear umbrella, and housing multiple US bases.

Japan, however, at that point was a liberal democracy with rights and stuff. Can't say that about the PRC.

jhwang5 8y ago

Hmm it's not a democracy in the traditional sense. A single party has been in power for 40+ years.

twblalock 8y ago
> Hmm it's not a democracy in the traditional sense. A single party has been in power for 40+ years. Thats not true. One party has been dominant over the past 40+ years because it won most of the elections, which are free and fair elections according to international standards. Plenty of opposition parties have been active the entire time, they just weren't popular enough to win. They are not suppressed or restricted or thrown in jail -- they just aren't able to convince the voters. There have been periods, including quite recently, when opposition parties held power. Their performance while in power caused the voters to vote for the dominant party next time.
Symmetry 8y ago
You're a bit out of date, the DPJ managed to get into office recently before losing to the LDP again.
lkrubner 8y ago
In the USA the Democrats held the House from 1954 to 1994, which is 40 years, but people felt the USA was still a democracy during this time. Even in competitive political systems, sometimes one party puts together a broad coalition that can hold power for decades.
- twblalock 8y ago
  Another example is the UK Conservative Party holding power for 18 years from 1979 to 1997 by winning every election during that period. It would not have been reasonable to say the UK was not a democracy in that period -- it was just the case that the voters preferred one party the entire time.

ng12 8y ago

Exactly. China isn't scary, an oppressive authoritarian regime controlling the world economy is.

stcredzero 8y ago
To what extent does the mostly single party state of California influence the world economy?
- garmaine 8y ago
  Non-sequitur?
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Maybe for a privileged urban techie. There are people here in California who grouse about the state being an oppressive single-party state. There are certain rural and city people (both white and black) who have to behave differently and give extra thought to avoiding unwanted law enforcement scrutiny. There have been numerous articles written about how many rural California interests are under-represented. I have a friend who lives up north in the Sierras (who actually won an award for her work in social justice) who can't go to certain bars in her town, because someone might knife her over political disagreements. There is some unrest, oppression of the less powerful, and under-representation here in California. It's much better here than in many parts of the world, but it's there. Some of it is due to the lop-sided nature of politics here.
    - asveikau 8y ago
      > people here ... who grouse about the state being an oppressive single-party state. I'm pretty sure you can say that about most states. Either you have a blue state with a rural population that feels oppressed, or a red state with an urban population that feels oppressed, or pockets of people identifying with the less dominant party within both urban or rural areas. It doesn't fit neatly into 21st century American domestic political discourse (with emphasis since 2000 on red states vs. blue states), but we're really more interspersed than we believe, at varying proportions.

nostrademons 8y ago

It'll be interesting to see the political situation evolve in China. There's a popular perception in American mythology that liberal democracy causes prosperity, but if you look at economic history across many different cultures, the reverse seems to be more true: economic prosperity causes liberal democracy. As a growing middle class gains more economic power, they inevitably try to push for more political power, and because the country ceases to operate without them, they tend to get it. I suspect that the political situation for Xi Jinping and the CCP is actually a lot more tenuous than is publicized outside of China, and that they're investing so heavily in surveillance & control technologies because they're insecure. It wouldn't surprise me if we see a democratic revolution in China within a decade.

JohnJamesRambo 8y ago
I hope you are right. I never see any indications a democratic revolution is even on the radar there. Is it all hidden?
- nostrademons 8y ago
  It would be, right? If the government cracks down on any dissident accused of fomenting revolution, the very last thing you would do is talk about revolution. I think any revolution is fairly unlikely while China continues to grow rapidly under the CCP, but if growth stutters or corruption becomes overwhelming (or if America collapses and stops buying Chinese goods), it could happen. The catalyst for most revolutions seems to be when people give up on trying to expand the pie and start stealing slices from less powerful countrymen, causing widespread resentment. I'm just thinking back to other revolutions that have occurred, though, and they usually take people outside the country by complete surprise. I was a kid in the 80s, and the Cold War was basically a fact of life. I had an international relations professor who was in the Pentagon when Gorbachev was deposed, they had just completed their 5-year geostrategic plan, and nowhere in the plan was the possibility that the USSR might not exist. Same with the Arab Spring - from the U.S, it was like "What the hell is happening?" Interestingly, it was not clear at the time of the American Revolution that it would result in a liberal democracy. It seems that the expectation at the time is that it would result in total anarchy (the way the Syrian Civil War has), with the colonists killing each other, and it almost did, and it wasn't until almost 15 years after Lexington & Concord that it was clear (with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution) that it wouldn't. And maybe that's the mechanism by which a wealthy & well-networked middle class leads to democracy: in states without it, a revolution collapses into anarchy and the elevation of a charismatic dictator, while with it the various interests need to negotiate and share power because each of them needs something that only the others can provide.

pesmhey 8y ago

And under our nuclear umbrella, and housing multiple US bases.