101–110 of 131 posts
Economic growth is not the only measure of success. In fact, it is one of many.
But, but, but... they're not democratic! If only they'd put more power in the hands of the common man, they too could enjoy such luminous choices for statesmen as McCain vs. Obama, Bush II vs. Kerry, Bush II vs Gore, Dole vs. Clinton, Bush I vs. Clinton... ...we gotta keep saber rattling that our way is better than theirs. Boo China, boo. Edit: To the downvoter - okay, I'm joking around. But which of these premises d…
Communist governments have usually attracted intellectuals to higher levels of power -- the results so far haven't been uplifting. I don't think that a comparison of the US system vs. China is going to produce a clear "winner", only a list of pros/cons whose weighting will be shaped by your perceptions and bias. The explosive growth of China hides most of the warts of the system. When you have economic growth so fast…
No they don't. The Chinese cultural revolution has almost extinguished the intellectual class before ending. I don't recall a single scientist in The Soviet Union Politburo. Do you have any examples for your "usually", beyond this particular incarnation of the Chinese government?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the results so far haven't been uplifting 10% growth every year for a quarter of a century? I regard that as very impressive. > I don't think that a comparison of the US system vs. China is going to produce a clear "winner" It's likely that one of these two countries is going to end up dominating the world. Of course, it's not so much about countries as social systems: both have their strengths and weaknesses. > An…
> 10% growth every year for a quarter of a century? I regard that as very impressive. It's not that impressive when you're chasing tail-lights and the folks ahead are (mostly) helping.
I'll tell you, the Chinese hard even harder to govern than the French. (I'm French, I know both.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the results so far haven't been uplifting 10% growth every year for a quarter of a century? I regard that as very impressive. > I don't think that a comparison of the US system vs. China is going to produce a clear "winner" It's likely that one of these two countries is going to end up dominating the world. Of course, it's not so much about countries as social systems: both have their strengths and weaknesses. > An…
> 10% growth every year for a quarter of a century? I regard that as very impressive. It's not that impressive when you're chasing tail-lights and the folks ahead are (mostly) helping.
You've identified the problem, but it's not the problem that you think that it is.
Why do you assume that "holding together" and "govern" is a good idea? More to the point, what would happen if the Chinese govt stopped trying to do so?
It's not like China is going to be invaded.
I was going to write something about keeping the gangsters in check, but then I remembered that official corruption is a huge problem in China, and most of that stems from this "govern" thing that you value so highly.
> They never stop inventing ways to break the rules,
Which is another reason why 10% is no big deal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the results so far haven't been uplifting 10% growth every year for a quarter of a century? I regard that as very impressive. > I don't think that a comparison of the US system vs. China is going to produce a clear "winner" It's likely that one of these two countries is going to end up dominating the world. Of course, it's not so much about countries as social systems: both have their strengths and weaknesses. > An…
> 10% growth every year for a quarter of a century? I regard that as very impressive. They are catching up to status quo. Mostly because they squandered the previous decades scientifically hunting down sparrows and enemies of the state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nuanced comment here, good analysis. I agree with a lot, but two nitpicks about the first point - 1. I'd say Communist movements attract intellectuals. Communist governments usually do not employ those intellectuals for very long after taking power. 2. Despite the name and symbols, I don't think China is actually Communist any more. I don't know what to call them. If they remain a world power and continue to thrive,…
It's pretty much impossible for a government to remain Communist after formation. According to Marx, a Communist state should disassemble itself after organizing society in such a way that it can sustain egalitarianism in a classless manner. Because dictatorial power is necessary to reorganize society from the top down, this power will be acquired by a Communist state. Unfortunately, every institution is self-serving…
But, but, but... they're not democratic! If only they'd put more power in the hands of the common man, they too could enjoy such luminous choices for statesmen as McCain vs. Obama, Bush II vs. Kerry, Bush II vs Gore, Dole vs. Clinton, Bush I vs. Clinton... ...we gotta keep saber rattling that our way is better than theirs. Boo China, boo. Edit: To the downvoter - okay, I'm joking around. But which of these premises d…
The reason why democracy is a good thing is not because the general public is good at running a country, or even good at selecting people who are good at running a country. The reason why democracy is a good thing is it forces the people in power to care about the effects their decisions have on the general public.
But, but, but... they're not democratic! If only they'd put more power in the hands of the common man, they too could enjoy such luminous choices for statesmen as McCain vs. Obama, Bush II vs. Kerry, Bush II vs Gore, Dole vs. Clinton, Bush I vs. Clinton... ...we gotta keep saber rattling that our way is better than theirs. Boo China, boo. Edit: To the downvoter - okay, I'm joking around. But which of these premises d…
I'm not sure China's leadership has shown a more nuanced understanding of policy and statesmanship than America's leadership. First, America has dominated the world for the last 30 years. We've got a lot of public fingers in a lot of public pies as the world's policeman. China takes no such stance. It wants oil, so it supports Sudan genocide. It wants a buffer zone between it and the West, so it supports North Korea.…
I used to feel the same way until I visited China last year. Their social restrictions really are nuanced! They allow a lot of freedom to the rich/intelligentsia of appropriate ethnic groups and restrict the "restive" segments of their population. A lot of care has gone into the system by which their government maintains control while simultaneously trying to maximize growth and material comfort. It's not just naked oppression.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 10% growth every year for a quarter of a century? I regard that as very impressive. They are catching up to status quo. Mostly because they squandered the previous decades scientifically hunting down sparrows and enemies of the state.
Which is so different from the War on Terror and the Patriot Act.