Beijing jailed dissident for 11 years

So you're saying that you shouldn't defend your country if you perceive it's getting undeserved attacks?

Just last week, I had dinner with a couple of Pakistanian friends. They were telling me that in Pakistan, suicide bombs go off every other week. And that just a while ago, one detonated 2 blocks from his little brother's college. He rambled on about the sinister Americans and how much they've f-ed up Pakistan ever since 9/11. First from spiraling inflation to now war and terrorism(I won't go into details so as to not derail the thread). This had been an ongoing discussion since we met a year ago.

Every time, I defended the US and tried to explain our actions as well as our way of thinking. So by your logic, I should've just told him to screw it? And that US kicks ass and has no need to explain itself?

 

I hardly see 1.3+ billion people suffering an inferiority complex enmass, considering most of them hardly care what the rest of the world think of them.

What I see however, is yet again, another pathetic attempt by a black and white camp, unaware of the political situation, telling the Chinese they don't know what's good for themselves.

That type of delusion of grandeur is kinda sad really.

And with KingCheetah the moron, we see failure at its best. Let me remind you that is the flag of the::

Republic of CHINA.

KingCheetah = fail.

That's actually funny. Typically when you show the "democracy good every else bad" that other systems have their advantages, they bring out the usual "brain washed Chicom" argument while never addressing the substance of the post.

It was your position that China was an one party totalitarian system, you've been proven wrong.

It was your position that a one party authoritarian system was inferior/doomed to failure, you've been proven wrong.

Outside that it is irrelevant what my political belief is, because you are wrong and I'm right.

No struggles at all. And exaggerate much? Which Singaporean man got whipped for chewing gum. I am well aware of Singapore's canning as a form of corporal punishment, one which I don't necessarily disagree with, but I fail to see that as more than your worthless rambling.

Without writing an essay on the subject, totalitarianism is a far extreme version of authoritarianism which actually rarely occurs, so I don't intend to theorize their efficiencies. However, the argument that a democracy is more efficient than an authoritarian one (such as China) is a myth. As you've mentioned, it does depend on extenuating circumstance.

And democracy is susceptible to collapse as well. Do you really need examples?

I am having trouble identifying your argument here. Yes, life is easier and more comfortable than in ancient times, but that is due to the rise of technology, instead of political system. You mention kings and tyrants, but there are also leaders who built great and prosperous empires. And today, you have democracies like India (dump), Pakistan (basket case), and don't forget, the Nazi party was voted in.

Quite frankly I find the selection bias for the benefits of democracy rather tiring, a be all end all system that allegedly is supposed to cure the world's woes despite the evidence it doesn't.

Like I said, warts and all, China's system is working pretty well so far. Maybe in the future they'll change to a different one and the CCP will get the boot like every other dynasty that no longer filled the need of the Chinese people.

But not today...

 

I stand by my post. I know more than a little bit about Pakistan (and know folks that have far more knowledge about the country than I do) and won't drag that situation into this thread. Sorry.

 

I think we speak on somewhat similar ideals. From my quasi-libertarian perspective, what is less important is whether a state is democratic or not but rather how much power a state exercises over its citizens. Totalitarianism fails as it is a highly extreme form of authoritarianism which seeks complete control over its citizens, which leads to inefficiency and collapse. Democracies lose their effectiveness when they begin to exercise more and more state power (which causes their collapse), and I would argue that the reason China's become stronger is due to the fact that the power of their state has dramatically weakened, thus paving the way for openness and the power of the capitalist system.

If I had to argue with democracy, I would say that democracy in and of itself isn't superior to authoritarianism. However, democracy generally tends to lend itself to greater openness in a society as a rule due to the competition of various factions, which promotes capitalist ideals and thus gives its strength. If an authoritarian system could somehow become completely open in the way that democracies without risking collapse (something which China has sort of tried doing), than they can compete with them.

And I'll admit I have trouble identifying yours. You claim humans were fine before those pesky things like rights to appear, but what do you mean by "fine?" Many of those great empires were great for the ruler, but nothing really changed for the average peasant whom tilled the land and starved for the thousand years of oppressions of authoritarian systems, and then had better lives due to the development of capitalist/democratic structures which helped foster the technology which you discuss.
As for your countries examples: India is far less of a dump compared to 50 or even 10 years ago, Pakistan is not by any means a stable democracy, and the Nazis are an irrelevant example as I'm not arguing that democracies are perfect.

 

How come anytime the PRC is criticized the defense is always that the West isn't perfect either?

 

Don't you think things have changed in the US since 1917? Are you saying the PRC is basically like the US in 1917?

 

Not exactly. Technology can also be used to increase human misery, as in the example of the Nazis, and can be used as a tool of repression as much as it does of liberation. While technology is a great benefit to human life if there isn't a political system where those benefits can be exercised and enjoyed by a large number of people technology is useless to improving the human condition.

 

In the 1930's Smedley Butler claimed that he was approached by a group of wealthy business men who wanted him to overthrow the newly elected FDR in a coup. The US was at its closest to regime change since the Civil War. During the 1950's some Americans were the subjected to infamous questioning and blacklisting because of the Red Scare. In the 80's and 90's parts of the country were hit by severe economic depression and unemployment because of outsourcing.

It was all sunshine and sweet smelling roses after Debs.

 

Of course things have changed, and they have changed for the better because people like Debs have been thrown in prison and been given the images of public enemies.

 

Chewing gum is not illegal in Singapore, importing/selling chewing gum is (you won't get arrested for chewing gum in the streets). I have lived in Singapore at various stages of my life, and it's not a bad place to live, I think MFW would enjoy it here.

 

No argument from me on this point.

How would we know? Democracy in its current form only existed for 200 years or so. On the other hand we have millennia of example to draw upon the authoritarian one. I hardly think that "authoritarianism may collapse" is your argument.

I think your emphasis on modern capitalism is a mistake. It's not as if capitalism/mercentilism did not exist prior to democracy. There were likewise, merchants around the globe trying to acquire a profit. Let me remind you that capitalism predated democracy.

As for average peasants starving for thousands of years, like I've already stated, the real reason is the rise of technology (incidentally as/after we abandoned religion, go figure). The ability to produce more food than we can consumed along side the force relocation of labour to city (aka industrialization) led to the ability to produce other ideas. It would be more than a little disingenuous to credit democracy for it.

As a matter of fact, if it were a democracy, the industrialization part of it would have been impossible.

Finally, India/Pakistan/Nazi Germany aren't perfect democracies? I actually have no idea what a perfect democracy means. I haven't seen one. Have you? So if Mao says "perfect Communism" you'd be willing to give it a try?

Like I said, I am perfectly willing to recognize the advantage and disadvantage of all systems. My belief that the CCP is the best government for current China is after taking consideration both those advantages and disadvantages. The least you could do is the same.

What you've mentioned is a mere aberration, much as if I've taken 1929 and says the U.S. economy is always shrinking based on figures from that year when in actuality it's is a zig-zag with an unmistakable up-trend.

Your mere identification that technology CAN be used for evil does not change the fact that the rise of technology led to/coincided with the rise of our standard of living.

 

I'm from Hong Kong (although my knowledge of Chinese politics and government are sorely limited).

 

Meh, I don't feel like quite arguing too much here but I feel that technology is caused by when people are willing to share ideas and have an open society, which is fostered better under a democracy as people are naturally competitive due to the competition of factions. Technology isn't an inevitable thing, it needs the proper environment to develop, and I would say democracy does a better job of that.

You completely misquoted me, let me go over what I meant again.
India from my perspective would be an example of a successful democracy, not a failure. It has problems with the huge amount of ethnic diversity, it's been a dump for a long time reasons that have nothing to do with being a democracy, yet it remains a stable democracy and is far more successful today than it was 50 years ago. Incidentally, I would argue that this was due to the spread of capitalism, which occured when they lifted their Socialist ideology and joined the globalization ideal aka. democracy helps capitalism, but isn't necessary for it.
Pakistan is not a stable democracy, and so it can't be successful. You can't make a successful government of any kind if there's constant rioting and virtual civil wars and so on and so forth. The society just isn't stable, but this isn't the fault of democracy. And stable is a way different meaning from perfect.
The coming of the Nazis was a tragedy, but that's because democracies in and of themselves do not lead to peace and order. Democracies can turn into authoritarian states, just like vice versa, but that doesn't mean one is bad and the other is good.

Capitalism I would argue is much much more than the mere buying and selling of goods. While a primitive capitalism of that sort existed under the ancient empires, that wasn't a modern capitalism, which only really began under the Industrial Revolution and the massive increase in technology and in just the way things have changed.

 

I presume you are being sarcastic. If your argument is that the US jails people for political reasons yes it has done so in the past but things do change. Consider that Wen Ho Lee was exonerated. I don't think pulling up examples from 1917 or the 1930's help your argument much if you are saying that the US isn't much better the the PRC.

 

From what I recall chewing gum is a finable offense. You're not going to get arrested or caned but you will get a ticket.

 

If you look at the amount of death and misery that has befallen humanity from the wars and dictorships of the 20th Century thats not a mere aberration. Technology isn't the cause of suffering but it certainly makes it easier to inflict more pain on more people. Technology isn't the cause for the rise of standards of living either, it contributes but if that was the case then places like the Congo should see their standard of living rising too.

Without reforms to open economies and politics the benefits of technology aren't going to be evenly distrubuted, consider that while the USSR had very advanced technology but much of their people still lived in misery. For that matter without those economic and politic reforms the impetus to create new technology isn't that strong. Consider that both the industrial revolution came about in a time where there was both political and economic reforms.

 

Chewing gum is not in any way an offense, this is a common misconception (of course people don't have easy access to chewing gum anymore, so almost no one chews gum). Littering with your chewing gum (the reason behind the banning of gum import/sales in the first place) however is a finable offense, and you may have to do "community service" where you wear a bright vest indicating that you have to clean up public areas.

 

And in case someone asks, no, I'm pretty sure there's no death penalty for smuggling chewing gum. I hope.

 

Similarly the typical defense of US capitalism and the deplorable conditions of the lower 20% is always that they have it better than in Bangldesh or somewhere else.