3 ms·

"Our goal is to take a person who's on the edge of committing a crime and return them to normal society as a law abiding citizen" Even the official party line

"Our goal is to take a person who's on the edge of committing a crime and return them to normal society as a law abiding citizen" Even the official party line is horrifying. Shows just how out of touch they are with the Western world if they think this message will be well interpreted.

komali2 7y ago
> Shows just how out of touch they are with the Western world if they think this message will be well interpreted. They aren't interested in being aligned with Western values - why would they be? Freedom and democracy run perfectly contrary to their goals. I've had very in depth philosophical debates with Party members. Democracy - why would we leave the decisions to the people? The people don't know what's best for them, and they make bad decisions that lead to things like Brexit. Democracy is inefficient. FEMA can't adequately respond to disasters like the strong-arm of the Party can. Freedom of Information - this is too scary for the people. The people shouldn't have to deal with so much confusing information. Look at Fake News and how scary the media is. It creates confusion and mistrust in the government. That isn't good. The people don't want freedom of information. I unequivocally disagree with these arguments but these are the beliefs of the Party.
- SubiculumCode 7y ago
  My take on it: Democracy is necessary and good. It can be inefficient when times are good, but it is the most efficient way to right the ship when things are bad...also unilateral actions may appear efficient, but there will be lots of stakeholders that get hurt by those unilateral actions. Consensus takes time, and is susceptible to all sorts of poor arguments and one-liners, but when the people are suffering, I can think of no better way to peacefully overthrow the ruling body than by democratic elections.
  - zjaffee 7y ago
    I'd argue that democracy doesn't matter nearly as much as constitutional freedoms of assembly, speech (to a certain degree), independent press, ect. China still fears protest/revolution and will work in such a way that benefits their population in order to prevent uprisings and civil unrest. Add on the fact that the vast majority of issues that we view as democratic victories in the US, were more than anything, driven by direct action or initial change at the local level (a level which is democratic in china). Where in the cases where major change happened in a different way, it happened through the Judiciary which is also not democratic. Add on the fact that many of the direct democratic measures in the US tend to be destructive (prop 13, voting against any tax increase even if necessary over the long term), and there becomes a reason why a political system with a single party, namely a party with a largely unified political goal, is preferable. I'd also question when in US history (or elsewhere) has there ever been a time where democratic elections peacefully overthrew the ruling body. Usually there is significant continuity from administration to administration, where any serious political change happens due to outside direct action.
  - azinman2 7y ago
    It's only good if you have the cultural capital to back it up, and the institutions to push it forward. It will always come under attack because it's very inconvenient to the few who want power -- not every population can handle it well. It also requires a good amount of education, freedom and a willingness to discuss beliefs, etc. It also needs to be compatible with ones cultural identity and the history of a nation. The idea that you can just apply it everywhere universally is silly.
- yters 7y ago
  It sounds like party members are projecting their own insecurities.
- r00fus 7y ago
  It's not just "western" world. UN (which consists of not just western countries) has a concept of human rights that this would clearly fall out of. It's arguably not even Chinese values. The situation went from "ok just China" to "totalitarianism" once Xi got a life appointment. Funny that happened when Mao got long in the years too. Something Lord Acton said comes to mind.

komali2 7y ago

> Shows just how out of touch they are with the Western world if they think this message will be well interpreted. They aren't interested in being aligned with Western values - why would they be? Freedom and democracy run perfectly contrary to their goals. I've had very in depth philosophical debates with Party members. Democracy - why would we leave the decisions to the people? The people don't know what's best for them, and they make bad decisions that lead to things like Brexit. Democracy is inefficient. FEMA can't adequately respond to disasters like the strong-arm of the Party can. Freedom of Information - this is too scary for the people. The people shouldn't have to deal with so much confusing information. Look at Fake News and how scary the media is. It creates confusion and mistrust in the government. That isn't good. The people don't want freedom of information. I unequivocally disagree with these arguments but these are the beliefs of the Party.

SubiculumCode 7y ago
My take on it: Democracy is necessary and good. It can be inefficient when times are good, but it is the most efficient way to right the ship when things are bad...also unilateral actions may appear efficient, but there will be lots of stakeholders that get hurt by those unilateral actions. Consensus takes time, and is susceptible to all sorts of poor arguments and one-liners, but when the people are suffering, I can think of no better way to peacefully overthrow the ruling body than by democratic elections.
- zjaffee 7y ago
  I'd argue that democracy doesn't matter nearly as much as constitutional freedoms of assembly, speech (to a certain degree), independent press, ect. China still fears protest/revolution and will work in such a way that benefits their population in order to prevent uprisings and civil unrest. Add on the fact that the vast majority of issues that we view as democratic victories in the US, were more than anything, driven by direct action or initial change at the local level (a level which is democratic in china). Where in the cases where major change happened in a different way, it happened through the Judiciary which is also not democratic. Add on the fact that many of the direct democratic measures in the US tend to be destructive (prop 13, voting against any tax increase even if necessary over the long term), and there becomes a reason why a political system with a single party, namely a party with a largely unified political goal, is preferable. I'd also question when in US history (or elsewhere) has there ever been a time where democratic elections peacefully overthrew the ruling body. Usually there is significant continuity from administration to administration, where any serious political change happens due to outside direct action.
- azinman2 7y ago
  It's only good if you have the cultural capital to back it up, and the institutions to push it forward. It will always come under attack because it's very inconvenient to the few who want power -- not every population can handle it well. It also requires a good amount of education, freedom and a willingness to discuss beliefs, etc. It also needs to be compatible with ones cultural identity and the history of a nation. The idea that you can just apply it everywhere universally is silly.
yters 7y ago
It sounds like party members are projecting their own insecurities.
r00fus 7y ago
It's not just "western" world. UN (which consists of not just western countries) has a concept of human rights that this would clearly fall out of. It's arguably not even Chinese values. The situation went from "ok just China" to "totalitarianism" once Xi got a life appointment. Funny that happened when Mao got long in the years too. Something Lord Acton said comes to mind.