China's "Superior" Political Model

[Night]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/op...me&ref=general

An op-ed piece in the NY Times is making this claim. While they definitely have some valid points, I think they're being too critical of the US and too lenient of the PRC.

China is an authoritarian state. But instead of being led by a dictator, they are being led by a politburo. The Chinese politburo is very effective when it comes to some things, such as being able to quickly respond to crises. In the US, the government is supposed to represent the interests of it's citizens. While this doesn't work out perfectly in reality, it is a vastly better system for the Average Joe.

In China, the government is set up to serve the interests of the politburo, with a faux-interest in serving the people. Almost every decision they make clearly benefits them, and when it doesn't, it at least doesn't harm them.

The Chinese politburo is ran by old men who were promoted to their stations in life by family connections. Every single decision they make is to keep themselves in power. Their ultimate fear is a popular rebellion. To appease the peasantry, they are saying they want to give the Chinese more power over their government. But this isn't really true. They want to appear to give the Average Wong more power, to satiate his rebellious impulses. Their ultimate fear is another Tiananmen Square incident that they can't control.

Your thoughts?

[SoylentGreen]

Just to make sure we are on the same page here. Are you pointing out the similarities or the differences between Chinese and American politics?

[BlackSheep]

I agree that it all comes down to what you wish the government to achieve.
A one party system is very efficient and one that shows obvious disdain for it's own people is even more so. It can get things done for good or ill.
A multiparty system has many flaws and inefficiencies. Things happen slower, but in some ways that is the point. Checks and balances slow things but also make it much harder for someone to go the way of North Korea. If the government of a multiparty system starts to go that way it will have te other parties voice to bring it to the attention of the people and stop things.

[iolo]

State capitalism and monopoly capitalism - and the various degrees of market-control in between - clearly depend on their relation to the kind of society concerned. I fear that the US is in pretty steady decline - very little social movement, wages frozen, major drop in share of world markets and so on - and in need of a much more directed form of capitalism to function adequately (though safe enough while it has the world's reserve currency). Alas, however, the exponents of a totally theoretical and impossible model of capitalism (a fantasy which suits their book for a number of dubious 'reasons') are gaining more and more control. Looks like a disaster for all of us.

[Night]

I don't think the US will continue to decline. It has economic ups and downs. I think eventually the people will wisen up. Eventually people will demand the politicians help the middle class. The difference is, the American people just have to vote geezers out of office to change stuff. In China, they have to storm government buildings in Beijing and kill the politburo if they want real change.

[hilbert]

An op-ed piece in the NY Times is making this claim. While they definitely have some valid points, I think they're being too critical of the US and too lenient of the PRC.

China is an authoritarian state. But instead of being led by a dictator, they are being led by a politburo. The Chinese politburo is very effective when it comes to some things, such as being able to quickly respond to crises. In the US, the government is supposed to represent the interests of it's citizens. While this doesn't work out perfectly in reality, it is a vastly better system for the Average Joe.

In China, the government is set up to serve the interests of the politburo, with a faux-interest in serving the people. Almost every decision they make clearly benefits them, and when it doesn't, it at least doesn't harm them.

The Chinese politburo is ran by old men who were promoted to their stations in life by family connections. Every single decision they make is to keep themselves in power. Their ultimate fear is a popular rebellion. To appease the peasantry, they are saying they want to give the Chinese more power over their government. But this isn't really true. They want to appear to give the Average Wong more power, to satiate his rebellious impulses. Their ultimate fear is another Tiananmen Square incident that they can't control.

Your thoughts?

When I first read your post, I misread the first instance of "politburo" as "polluters". I thought, "By God, such a case could be made. I'll definitely read this guy's argument"

[iolo]

I don't think the US will continue to decline. It has economic ups and downs. I think eventually the people will wisen up. Eventually people will demand the politicians help the middle class. The difference is, the American people just have to vote geezers out of office to change stuff. In China, they have to storm government buildings in Beijing and kill the politburo if they want real change.

The American (relative) decline has been going on for a longish time. The way I see it, the problem is that although it is theoretically possible to change the direction of American capitalism, it is in practice peculiarly difficult to seize control of either party; In China, on the other hand, the weakness of the régime means that although it is apparently monolithic it is actually quite sensitive - at least in some respects - to popular opinon. We shall see.

[Thanatos]

The American (relative) decline has been going on for a longish time. The way I see it, the problem is that although it is theoretically possible to change the direction of American capitalism, it is in practice peculiarly difficult to seize control of either party; In China, on the other hand, the weakness of the régime means that although it is apparently monolithic it is actually quite sensitive - at least in some respects - to popular opinon. We shall see.

It would never have occurred to me that a government could be so bad it's good. However, I suppose if they're sufficiently worried about having the whole system fall apart one night then they'd have to listen to what their people want.

I'd still rather have a functional democratic system that's not held together by duct tape and nervousness.

[tinybear]

China's political system lacks a system of checks and balances which leads to arbitrary one party rule and abuse of power. There is no rule of law. There is no independent judiciary. There is arbitrary arrest and indefinite detention without trial. There is arbitrary resumption of land without compensation and organized corruption. In other words, the ordinary citizen has no guarantee of personal safety or property rights. Apart from this, China's present political system is just fine.

[Yarn]

China is like a stereotypical Asian student. It establishes goals and then works like hell to achieve them. Add to that extreme cleverness and the power of an authoritarian government and then you have the basic competency of the Chinese government. The place is run by morally idoctrinated engineers with tiger parents after all, what do you expect to happen?

We could probably learn some things from them, but because our morals are different we will never see eye to eye.

Compare this to a government run by lawyers who possess a combination of economic luddite, hedonistic populist, and clumsy bureaucratic hubris tendencies all taken to extremes. A system that requires a supermajority to get anything done or, with some exceptions, undone. One that requires a poorly educated self-concerned materialistic general populace, half of which has an IQ below 100, to democratically decide between a narrow array of disputacious lawyer elites. And then you get the US, free but sucky.

I'm not saying we should be as they are, but they are impressive and capable. Or so they'll seem until their system collapses on top of them, supposing that does eventually happen.

[iolo]

It would never have occurred to me that a government could be so bad it's good. However, I suppose if they're sufficiently worried about having the whole system fall apart one night then they'd have to listen to what their people want.

I'd still rather have a functional democratic system that's not held together by duct tape and nervousness.

Wouldn't we all. Unfortunately the party system prevents any actual listening: parties must represent those who pay for them, nowadays the rich, and exist in a system whose ideologicl defences are extremely powerful. Single party government (like the Chinese CP)
is vulnerable to total overthrow and to sudden takeover, so in a sense it shifts much faster in certain ways. I incline to go round with a placard saying 'The end is Nigh' myself: once a relative of Freud's got into manipulating public opinion in the 'thirties both systems were on the slide, I think.