4 ms·

I wrote you a very long response, I will have to split it into 2 separate posts. Post 1/2 : I appreciate the response to my comment that you've made here, and

by ep103 8y ago

I wrote you a very long response, I will have to split it into 2 separate posts. Post 1/2 : I appreciate the response to my comment that you've made here, and the links provided to sources, though they weren't necessary in this case : ) To respond to your post, I think we need to break it down into its constituent parts. I think you made 5 smaller points, each of which I would like to refute, and one larger, overall point, which I would like to address. With no intention of reducing or summarizing the substance of your post above, I will refer to your points as 1-5, with each rephrased as the following: 1) If a society has a history of mass death and suffering, but the society organizes itself in a such a way as to reduce the chance of mass death and suffering in the future, does that not justify whichever way the society chooses to so organize itself? Or more simply: Is the evil of mass death and warfare not sufficiently morally awful to justify all attempts to prevent such strife? 2) What makes us think the Chinese model will not work? 3) Societal organization is not the same as an engineering blueprint. Societal organization induces certain behaviors among its people, who then influence their government, which then influences its people. This cycle is a resonance point, a catch-22, that means even similar societies with small differences can have larger social and cultural differences which may themselves be very good or bad. These second order effects are just as important as the initial on-paper social organization of the society itself, but they also tend to be unpredictable. 4) Moral philosophy is nice, but ultimately what really matters in this world is not whether things work on paper, but whether things work in reality. A thing that works in reality, is many times more important and more meaningful than something that seems better, but hasn't been proven. Particularly in topics as complex as politics, where point #3 comes into play very strongly, and the stakes are so high (as mentioned in point #1) 5) You then impugned my character. But I believe this was mostly unintended and a result of your wording as you attempted to explain point #4. You also lightly imply that change is not possible, but the result of the narrative of history, which may be true on the macro sense, but is not what we are discussing here today, and does not impact your ability to decide your thoughts after having this conversation. So ignoring that last point, I understand your argument to be: China's model works. With so many people in the country, small changes can result in mass death and suffering, but the Chinese model keeps the Chinese people safe. We may not like the Chinese model, but we have no reason to believe it will not work. In fact, it appears to be working. And any change we introduce is likely to have 2nd and 3rd order effects which we cannot predict, but which, because they are unpredictable, potentially reintroduce the possibility of political fracture, and suffering back into the Chinese system. So don't fix what isn't broken. Moral justifications and ideological musings are important, but more important, is keeping 1 billion people alive and happy and not risking their lives on unproven reform. ------------------------ My responses below will be to each of your points one at a time. Starting with your #1 above, and continuing in order: 1) This argument only validates that some form of governance is _needed_ and that that form of governance is only acceptable if it can keep the people within it safe and provide decent lives. It is not a sufficient argument to promote one form of government over another. All governments keep their people safe from uprisings and civil war! That is one of the primary purposes of governments! If your objective is to keep people safe, then, we must ask whether the current structure of government is the best method of doing so. While I agree that, particularly so soon after China's bloody most recent civil war there is, and should, be significant resistance to major political overhaul in China itself... fundamentally the question still stands: of the types of government available, is the current form of government the best at, or even good at, keeping its people safe? If the answer is no, then some form of movement from the current type of government to a better version, even if in the form of small, incremental reform, I would argue is warranted. The exact degree of reform the populace should or would be willing to risk and experience will vary, but whether or not the populace should attempt such a thing is not. If this seems like a counter-intuitive, or overly naive viewpoint, I would argue two separate things. 1) all governments are constantly changing. The current Chinese model is currently under reformation. The question is not whether a government and society should change, but whether it is doing so in a positive direction, and the speed at which the change is occurring. If you are unwilling to consider the ways in which other governments may do a better job than your own, then you will also be unable to see the ways in which your own system will need to be improved in order to solve the problems your country faces. I would also point out, that you specifically point out two major problems that are facing the Chinese government currently, namely religious extremism, and the potential for civil war. But my counter, is that both of those things are only the main threats to stability in china... BECAUSE of the type of government that it has. Similarly to what you mentioned in your point #3, different forms of government have different forms of weakness. Historically, systems close to the Chinese system have a GREATER chance of exacerbating religious fundamentalism and violent revolt than most other governmental types, or said another way, if China was not an authoritarian government these particular threats would not be threats that need worrying about. As such, if your desire is to keep people safe, and prevent a future Taiping rebellion, then your goal should be to move China _away_ from an authoritarian model, not further towards it. In short: increasing the possibility of non-violent reform decreases the possibility of mass violence, radicalism, and extremism.

ep103 8y ago
Post 2/2 2) Nothing suggests to me that the Chinese model will not work. Similarly, I disagree with you that Nazi ideology does not work. Yes, Nazi leadership in the 20th century ultimately lost, and they did so in no small part due to their own hubris, but I think you are sorely mistaken if you believe that this means that Nazi ideology is not a workable political model. There have been many, many nations and empires built upon the concepts that a certain class or race of people were superior, and that the rich deserved to rule the nation, among the other aspects of fascist ideology. Given a different time, country, or leadership, there could still be a Nazi government alive and well in Europe today. In fact, I would point to the fact that there is such a large international Nazi movement alive and well today, despite such gigantic attempts to constrain it, as a good indication that it is a workable and viable political movement. It is also, however, simply NOT a world I would want to live in. The fall of the Nazis did not prove that one race was or was not stronger or "better" than another. It partially proved that the world wanted to live in a world that did not have to contend with such a competition between governments, peoples and races. It was a fundamentally moral question about what type of world we want to live in. I do not want to live in a world where Nazi ideology is the dominant ideology, and would give my life to prevent it. But this is not because I do not think Nazi ideology is a workable form of government, or that Nazi ideology would not keep its chosen people safe. It is because I fundamentally do not want to live in that world, and do not believe that that is a world humanity, or at least myself, needs to accept. I feel similarly about post-Leninist, or post-Maoist one party rule as I do living under a monarch, or living under a dictator, a theocracy, or a fascist government. It is not that these systems do not work. It is that I do not believe these governments to be ideal or good types of governance, for either moral or quality-of-life reasons for the people thus ruled. 3) I agree with your point #3. However, you then use this as a reason to argue against change and reform. But as I stated earlier, all governments are always in a state of change and reform, so this is an invalid step of logic. But there's a more insidious aspect to this argument, that I'm not sure you considered. Your argument here takes as an assumption that no matter what the effects are of political/organizational change and reform are, that the people involved are powerless to either correct the mistakes, or decide for themselves. In short, it implies that the people within a country have no capability of determining their own lives. That people are purely a product of their environment, and thus must be shaped by a greater force or person with power in order to improve. Ironically, historically, systems organized in this way almost always result in the people making the decisions being the people who are the most isolated, pampered, richest, and farthest removed from the effects of their decisions in the society. That in turn does usually mean that the country is unable to course-correct when negative reforms are made, due to the simple fact that those making the decisions are too far removed from the results of their decisions to intelligently know when to course correct. But if we throw out that underlying assumption to begin with, and assume that people do have the ability to comprehend what is good and bad in their own lives, to at least some degree, then the fear of second order effects you are mentioning is severely mitigated, and possibly ceases to exist outright. Allow me to put this another way: reform and change always occurs within a country. If that reform and change is not recognized by a country's organization, then it will happen informally and quietly in the hands of individuals with power, likely for their own benefit at the expense of the rest, and likely without recourse or the ability to correct mistakes. If, however, the country has a political process by which to reform itself, then that means that there is also, by definition, a way for some people in the country to undo reforms that do not work out. In other words, you do not need to worry about reform leading to the death and misery of the people. Those that have the power to reform, by definition, will have the power to undo reform that is seen as negative. What you need to worry about, are allowing the wrong people to have this power in an unaccountable way, or organizing your society in a manner where such reform is impossible and the only possibility is eventual revolution and bloodshed. Ironically, both of these things become substantially more likely the more and more authoritarian a country is. 4) I believe I also addressed this in the previous point. So to summarize: 5) Yes, the Chinese model likely works. With so many people in China, stability is greatly needed, and that is important, because the stakes are so unfathomably high. But a belief that the current Chinese model is the only model that could work for China is wrong. Indeed, a counter argument could be easily made (as it could be for almost all governments) that the majority of major problems China currently faces is the result of its current political structure, not solved or benefited by it. The only way to address those problems, is through academic study and comparison to other political systems so that one might identify how Chinese governance must be reformed in order to solve those problems. But the belief that change is not warranted and is unsafe both ignores the fact that change is always occurring, and dooms the country to its current path. And since its current path is one of increasing authoritarianism, the natural result of your argument, is, ironically, that the Chinese people, and the world, are less safe from the fears you mentioned at the beginning of your post as a result, not better. Or to put it another way: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety, and will soon have Neither."

by ep103 8y ago

ep103 8y ago

Post 2/2 2) Nothing suggests to me that the Chinese model will not work. Similarly, I disagree with you that Nazi ideology does not work. Yes, Nazi leadership in the 20th century ultimately lost, and they did so in no small part due to their own hubris, but I think you are sorely mistaken if you believe that this means that Nazi ideology is not a workable political model. There have been many, many nations and empires built upon the concepts that a certain class or race of people were superior, and that the rich deserved to rule the nation, among the other aspects of fascist ideology. Given a different time, country, or leadership, there could still be a Nazi government alive and well in Europe today. In fact, I would point to the fact that there is such a large international Nazi movement alive and well today, despite such gigantic attempts to constrain it, as a good indication that it is a workable and viable political movement. It is also, however, simply NOT a world I would want to live in. The fall of the Nazis did not prove that one race was or was not stronger or "better" than another. It partially proved that the world wanted to live in a world that did not have to contend with such a competition between governments, peoples and races. It was a fundamentally moral question about what type of world we want to live in. I do not want to live in a world where Nazi ideology is the dominant ideology, and would give my life to prevent it. But this is not because I do not think Nazi ideology is a workable form of government, or that Nazi ideology would not keep its chosen people safe. It is because I fundamentally do not want to live in that world, and do not believe that that is a world humanity, or at least myself, needs to accept. I feel similarly about post-Leninist, or post-Maoist one party rule as I do living under a monarch, or living under a dictator, a theocracy, or a fascist government. It is not that these systems do not work. It is that I do not believe these governments to be ideal or good types of governance, for either moral or quality-of-life reasons for the people thus ruled. 3) I agree with your point #3. However, you then use this as a reason to argue against change and reform. But as I stated earlier, all governments are always in a state of change and reform, so this is an invalid step of logic. But there's a more insidious aspect to this argument, that I'm not sure you considered. Your argument here takes as an assumption that no matter what the effects are of political/organizational change and reform are, that the people involved are powerless to either correct the mistakes, or decide for themselves. In short, it implies that the people within a country have no capability of determining their own lives. That people are purely a product of their environment, and thus must be shaped by a greater force or person with power in order to improve. Ironically, historically, systems organized in this way almost always result in the people making the decisions being the people who are the most isolated, pampered, richest, and farthest removed from the effects of their decisions in the society. That in turn does usually mean that the country is unable to course-correct when negative reforms are made, due to the simple fact that those making the decisions are too far removed from the results of their decisions to intelligently know when to course correct. But if we throw out that underlying assumption to begin with, and assume that people do have the ability to comprehend what is good and bad in their own lives, to at least some degree, then the fear of second order effects you are mentioning is severely mitigated, and possibly ceases to exist outright. Allow me to put this another way: reform and change always occurs within a country. If that reform and change is not recognized by a country's organization, then it will happen informally and quietly in the hands of individuals with power, likely for their own benefit at the expense of the rest, and likely without recourse or the ability to correct mistakes. If, however, the country has a political process by which to reform itself, then that means that there is also, by definition, a way for some people in the country to undo reforms that do not work out. In other words, you do not need to worry about reform leading to the death and misery of the people. Those that have the power to reform, by definition, will have the power to undo reform that is seen as negative. What you need to worry about, are allowing the wrong people to have this power in an unaccountable way, or organizing your society in a manner where such reform is impossible and the only possibility is eventual revolution and bloodshed. Ironically, both of these things become substantially more likely the more and more authoritarian a country is. 4) I believe I also addressed this in the previous point. So to summarize: 5) Yes, the Chinese model likely works. With so many people in China, stability is greatly needed, and that is important, because the stakes are so unfathomably high. But a belief that the current Chinese model is the only model that could work for China is wrong. Indeed, a counter argument could be easily made (as it could be for almost all governments) that the majority of major problems China currently faces is the result of its current political structure, not solved or benefited by it. The only way to address those problems, is through academic study and comparison to other political systems so that one might identify how Chinese governance must be reformed in order to solve those problems. But the belief that change is not warranted and is unsafe both ignores the fact that change is always occurring, and dooms the country to its current path. And since its current path is one of increasing authoritarianism, the natural result of your argument, is, ironically, that the Chinese people, and the world, are less safe from the fears you mentioned at the beginning of your post as a result, not better. Or to put it another way: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety, and will soon have Neither."