ang7_NOEL CELISAFP via Getty Images_xi jinping

Politics

专制与民主体制的错误两分法

Oct 28, 2020 Yuen Yuen Ang

发自安娜堡—与美国和苏联之间的旧超级大国竞争不同，当前初露端倪的中美冷战并未反映出某种不可扭转对立意识形态的根本冲突，却被普遍描绘成了专制与民主之间的史诗性斗争。

此外事实似乎表明专制大获全胜，而民主则一败涂地。美国总统特朗普领导下的美国在新型冠状病毒疫情期间表现一塌糊涂，中国却控制住了病毒。在美国当地连戴口罩的行为都被政治化的时候，中国却在最初爆发疫情的中国武汉以惊人的能力和秩序在十日内对1100万居民实施了病毒检测。对于许多人来说胜负似乎早已明了：专制主义优于自由民主。

但得于这样的结论不仅过于草率，甚至是误导性的，原因有三：首先，正如特朗普领导下的美国不能代表所有民主国家一样，习近平领导下的中国也不应被视为专制国家的范本。韩国和新西兰等其他民主社会也对疫情进行了妥善应对，政治自由并未妨碍其政府实施病毒遏制措施的能力。

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

Our latest event, What Economics is Missing, is now live.

Click the link below for opening remarks from Dani Rodrik, followed by a discussion among Ashwini Deshpande, Raquel Fernández, Minouche Shafik, and Vera Songwe on how to achieve inclusivity in economics.

Watch Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 39 Comments on this article

William Allan Nov 13, 2020

Yuen Yuen Ang raises important and interesting questions, though, as many commentators have argued a clear definition of democracy is needed—and indeed autocracy too has many variants. Rather than a false dichotomy, we must deal with a complex multichotomy of both national and global governance forms. On democracy, John Keane’s 2009 book, The Life and Death of Democracy, gives a compendious view of the development of democratic concepts from well prior to its classical Athenian model through to modern times and its many variants and flaws. Autocracy has a probably much longer yet intertwined history. Roman imperialism built the beginnings of European autocratic monarchy, which, drawing from the Greek philosophers, led eventually to the development of modern European and American democracies. Asia has had a longer experience of dynastic autocracy, combined in China with Confucian and Daoist philosophy and a powerful mandarinate. All of these issues need deeper investigation.
Recent attempts to examine the key elements of democracy across countries are being made through the V-Dem project (https://www.v-dem.net/en/). I think that the various dimensions of democracy identified under V-Dem are more generally applicable to all forms of governance.

The key point is that we need to open all forms of governance to detailed scrutiny and open them to assessment against cosmopolitan values. Unfortunately, deeper objective investigation does not generally resolve deep-seated political problems. In my career I devoted considerable effort to the promotion of transparency and accountability in governmental fiscal and monetary operations. These efforts were taken up seriously by international institutions and civil society—yet the impact on national government operations has been slight. The real problem is that those in power must make the decision to pursue reform, but the incentives for reform, whether democratic or autocratic, are slight. Ms Yuen is correct to highlight the issue and to point out that the distinction between democracies and autocracies are rather slight.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
kkrwren Nov 1, 2020

While i agree with the gist of the article, it still seems to go by stereotypes. Accountability is taken for granted as a democratic feature here. However, what has been clear in the last decades or so is that it is retreating and vanishing in Western systems, in public life, in business, and even in finance these days, thanks to revolving doors and intitutional capture by interest groups. In fact our election system now provides cover for irresponsibility and incompetence.

Small example, plenty of Chinese officials fell on their swords for mishandling the covid crisis. In the entire West, given the scale of failures, has a single public servant or elected official taken responsibility or been held accountable? Indeed even the public is not demanding it. Only one thing unites all our rulers and officials in all Western countries: "it is not my fault, not my responsibility, dont look at me for answers." How did we get here? Indeed, our system cannot even seem to trace and pinpoint the chain of accountability in this case.

The president or PM are still, thank God, somewhat accountable, but not really. The moral and career consequence of failure is extremely cosmetic.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Russell Cosgrove Nov 1, 2020

Since you have not defined democracy it’s a little hard to know what you mean here. You have attempted to summarize the goal for society as “pluralism and stability,” but some might argue that the word you are looking for is “democracy.” The word has been weaponized in China and so your topic is wrapped up in the ways the word has been distorted. The problem is compounded by the fact that many refer to America as a democracy. America is far from being a democracy, it is more of an oligarchy. But many Americans do use the word “democracy” to refer to the ultimate goal for society. So it seams we are just talking past each other, using different meanings for words without acknowledging it.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Russell Cosgrove Nov 1, 2020

A definition of democracy here would make this article much more meaningful. Surely, there are many ways in which the US is not democratic.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
About Face Nov 1, 2020

The clash between Trump's US and China has nothing to do with democracy vs authoritarian rule. It's one narcissist bully taking on a China, that is fast exerting her economic power and might. That bully is shooting tariffs and curtailment of free market operations with Chinese business entities that is not paying him rents. Bottom line, its overt corruption vs controlled corruption.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
donald quixote Oct 30, 2020

A valiant effort by Professor Ang in her candour by cutting through the distraction touted by talking heads. Admittedly this article is based on the stereotyping theory that posits legitimacy of governance must necessarily be based on the right branding, that a democracy is necessarily more legitimate than an autocracy simply because democracy is produced by suffrage (rule of the masses long debunked by Plato in the Socratic dialogues).

As one of three 20C control (not governance) experiments to replace kingdoms and monarchies of old, two of which already failed spectacularly – Bolshevism, Fascism, the suffrage-powered “liberal-democratic” neo-Feudalism is now doomed. For if facts can be considered, whatever pain democracy, oligarchy or kakistocracy (take your pick) is inflicting on America economy since 911, CCP China is proving quite the opposite of that. And whatever legitimacy any experts claim they have more of, Covid-governance ie arresting and flattening the IFR curve, proves yet again the hollowness of “democracy” and its correlation with good governance.

It matters not an iota what moniker academia bestow on labeling or understanding a sovereign nation, and whether that moniker is claimed to be more or less legitimate than the next, what matters at the end of the day is true governance, everything else is sound bytes, factoids and most likely, pure propaganda.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Yoshimichi Moriyama Oct 30, 2020

The contest between the United States and the Soviet Union was different in nature and character from the one between the United States and China for a number of reasons.

Many Japanese experts say Xi's grip on the CCP is far from firm unlike its appearance.
- Yoshimichi Moriyama Oct 31, 2020
  
  The contest with Russian was easy in character but the one with China is much tougher because of their different national characters.
  
  An American or a Chinese can buy whatever car he/she likes. But Americans or Chinese as a people cannot choose their political system. The political system is inescapably involved in or heavily shackled by a people's history.
  
  A human being has two Achilles heels. But China has more than two.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
BEN L. Oct 30, 2020

A must read for all the western politicians and media.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Oct 29, 2020

A balanced viewpoint on the debate. I think we should actively search for ways in which we can structure nations so that when the need arises authoritarianism can be reached for temporarily without someone using it to declare themselves Supreme Leader for life. This is a hard thing to do but I contend it is not impossible.
- lt lee Oct 29, 2020
  
  In case you have Xi removing term limit on your mind,
  1. Xi has yet to exercise power beyond his second term. "Supreme leader for life" is premature.
  2. More important, is he imposing his will against the will of the people? If so, please elaborate.
  - Michael Public Oct 30, 2020
    
    I was actually not thinking about Xi at all (through he is certainly shaping up in that direction - he could one day be recalled by the party) - I was talking about every authoritarian regime in general. The USSR, the Nazis, Iran, North Korea - and a hundred other examples going back in history to the Roman Empire. Of course the CCP is adamant that the people cannot remove it from power so they fit the mold. Basically any ruling class that does not allow a change of leadership once they are entrenched in power. Why should there be a ruling class who is entitled to rule forever?
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
lt lee Oct 28, 2020

Agree with the title that there is no black and white dichotomy between autocracy and democracy. However, many oversea Chinese uncritically accept Western view that ritualistic popular voting is the hallmark of a democracy. Since China does not hold popular voting, it is by default an autocracy.

Autocracy means du cai (独裁) in Chinese. Baidu.com explains its meaning with the following:
"独裁意为独自裁断。多指独揽政权，实行专制统治，如独裁者，个人独裁，独裁统治等。《晋书·李绩载记》：“ 慕容恪欲以绩为尚书右仆射，暐憾绩往言，不许。恪屡请，乃谓恪曰：‘万机之事委之叔父；伯阳（李绩）一人，暐请独裁。’ 绩遂忧死。”
独裁最为突出的阶段是奴隶制时期和封建社会时期，当时的贵族们为了维护自身的利益，凌驾于法律之上，以个人意志左右国家意志。"

I guess the important points are 1) Above the law for the interest of the ruling class and 2) the dictator's will over the people's will. The above do not seem to fit China since Deng's time.

Western nations have their Western democracy. Why can't China have its own version of democracy. After all, democracy means "people rule." Shouldn't one ask the Chinese people themselves whether China is democracy or not?

Bloomberg had a recent article entitled "China Is More Democratic Than America, Say the People."
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-06-26/which-nations-are-democracies-some-citizens-might-disagree

In short, the article summarized survey results from 53 nations. Two of the questions are whether the respondents believed democracy was important and whether their nation was a democracy.
For Chinese respondents, 84% answered "Democracy is important", and 73% "My country is democratic." Judging from the results, China is more democratic than America.

How about ritualistic popular voting?
Yes, under the right condition, such voting COULD lead to democratic policies. But voting is neither necessary nor sufficient for democratic outcome. Democracy implies consent of the governed while voting means consent of the losers. Democratic policies and outcome depends on the winners, not the losers. Hence, consent of the losers does not contribute to democratic policies/outcome.
- Michael Public Oct 29, 2020
  
  China indeed votes - from wikipedia.
  
  "Elections in China are based on a hierarchical electoral system, whereby local People's Congresses are directly elected, and all higher levels of People's Congresses up to the National People's Congress (NPC), the national legislature, are indirectly elected by the People's Congress of the level immediately below."
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Godfree Roberts Oct 28, 2020

"No modern Chinese leader held more personal power than Mao Zedong, yet his absolute authority led to a massive famine followed by a de facto civil war during the Cultural Revolution."

PRC governance has never been monarchical, like ours. Mao was fired at least once and, unlike American presidents, he didn't kill people or invade their countries.

What led to the famine, Three Difficult Years, as they are known in China, was the worst combination of drought and flooding in a century–an El Nino event that cut Canada's prairie wheat harvest by 50% and plunged New England into the worst drought it has ever recorded.

The United States imposed a grain embargo on China, in hopes of starving the country into submission but, thanks to superb logistics (of which Mao was a peerless master), nobody starved to death, as even the CIA, which had been assigned to monitor the success of the embargo, was forced to report:

"4 April 1961: The Chinese Communist regime is now facing the most serious economic difficulties it has confronted since it concentrated its power over mainland China. As a result of economic mismanagement, and, especially, of two years of unfavorable weather, food production in 1960 was little if any larger than in 1957 at which time there were about 50 million fewer Chinese to feed. Widespread famine does not appear to be at hand, but in some provinces many people are now on a bare subsistence diet and the bitterest suffering lies immediately ahead, in the period before the July harvests. The dislocations caused by the ‘Leap Forward’ and the removal of Soviet technicians have disrupted China’s industrialization program. These difficulties have sharply reduced the rate of economic growth during 1960 and have created a serious balance of payments problem. Public morale, especially in rural areas, is almost certainly at its lowest point since the Communists assumed power, and there have been some instances of open dissidence".

"2 May 1962: The future course of events in Communist China will be shaped largely by three highly unpredictable variables: the wisdom and realism of the leadership, the level of agricultural output, and the nature and extent of foreign economic relations. During the past few years all three variables have worked against China. In 1958 the leadership adopted a series of ill-conceived and extremist economic and social programs; in 1959 there occurred the first of three years of bad crop weather; and in 1960 Soviet economic and technical cooperation was largely suspended. The combination of these three factors has brought economic chaos to the country. Malnutrition is widespread, foreign trade is down and industrial production and development have dropped sharply. No quick recovery from the regime’s economic troubles is in sight".

Ridiculing the Great Leap Forward as ‘The Great Leap Backward,’ Edgar Snow[1] confirmed the CIA’s findings: "Were the 1960 calamities actually as severe as reported in Peking, ‘the worst series of disasters since the nineteenth century,’ as Chou En-lai told me? Weather was not the only cause of the disappointing harvest but it was undoubtedly a major cause. With good weather the crops would have been ample; without it, other adverse factors I have cited–some discontent in the communes, bureaucracy, transportation bottlenecks–weighed heavily. Merely from personal observations in 1960 I know that there was no rain in large areas of northern China for 200-300 days. I have mentioned unprecedented floods in central Manchuria where I was marooned in Shenyang for a week..while Northeast China was struck by eleven typhoons–the largest number in fifty years and I saw the Yellow River reduced to a small stream. Throughout 1959-62 many Western press editorials continued referring to ‘mass starvation’ in China and continued citing no supporting facts. As far as I know, no report by any non-Communist visitor to China provides an authentic instance of starvation during this period. Here I am not speaking of food shortages, or lack of surfeit, to which I have made frequent reference, but of people dying of hunger, which is what ‘famine’ connotes to most of us, and what I saw in the past".

Felix Greene[2], too, traveled throughout China in 1960:
"With the establishment of the new government in Peking in 1949, two things happened. First, starvation–death by hunger–ceased in China. Food shortages–and severe ones–there have been; but no starvation. This is a fact fully documented by Western observers. The truth is that the sufferings of the ordinary Chinese peasant from war, disorder and famine have been immeasurably less in the last decade than in any other decade in the century".

[1] Snow, Edgar. Red Star Over China, Victor Gollancz 1937. p.120
[2] Curtain of Ignorance, Felix Greene
- Michael Public Oct 29, 2020
  
  "nobody starved to death"
  Not one person died? Per Wikipedia the low estimates are around 15 million for the Great Leap Forward famine (1958 to 1962), going all the way up to 55 million - as calculated by various international scholars. The author above is being too vague when he talks about following the Cultural Revolution - he means the famines following the Great Leap Forward. The most aggressive estimate of the death toll by a Chinese mathematician (no doubt closely watched by a party representative) is 2.5 million deaths. The complicity of the droughts is admitted - but so is Mao declaring that metal should be collected to feed industry - causing peasants to melt agricultural tools to please the party.
  - Godfree Roberts Oct 29, 2020
    
    Nobody starved to death. Read http://www.unz.com/article/mao-reconsidered-part-two-whose-famine/
    - Michael Public Oct 30, 2020
      
      Today you can read enormous quantities of fact supported arguments about how the Holocaust never happened - and they ARE convincing at first - until you meet people whose fathers were taken away one night by the Gestapo, or happen upon a small forgotten Jewish countryside graveyard in Germany where the graves mysteriously stop in 1938 - both of which I have personally experienced. The biography Wild Swans details those times for a politically connected and educated family - and they had a virtually nothing to eat - it is described in morbid detail.
      - Godfree Roberts Oct 30, 2020
        
        Let me know if you meet anyone whose parent starved to death. Or, for that matter, anyone whose parent was killed in the Cultural Revolution. Or Tiananmen Square.
        Such atrocity stories have been part of national propaganda campaigns since nations were invented.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
aethelwulf e Oct 28, 2020

Some sense here, and confusion, like “the idea that we can choose only between freedom in an American-style democracy and order in a Chinese-style autocracy is false..” No, not false.
It’s not hard, the arguments are simple.
Responsible freedom – heart of liberal democracy – works, emphatically.
Which is why the PRC borrowed it in part to escape the Maoist shambles.
Look at the case study of PRC v Taiwan.
PRC today is on the wrong road.
Like the BRI is a giant waste of money.
- Susan Robinson Oct 29, 2020
  
  You need to be objective, assessing issues based on facts.
  
  Credit where credit is due, given China's enormous size and complexities, China is doing many things right that have brought peace and prosperity to hundreds and hundreds of millions of people.
  
  US per capita GDP = 65000 USD, China per capita GDP = 10000 USD, so you can see the very large gap that China is lagging behind....
  
  With hundreds and hundreds of millions of people living in poverty for so many decades, China desperately wants to learn/ emulate other countries (like Singapore, South Korea) to embark on economic developments, build infrastructure, develop human capital, create jobs, continuously to increase productivity to lift these hundreds and hundreds of millions of people out of poverty....so, you can see the scale and appreciate the full enormity of these efforts which have enabled China's GDP growth to average almost 10 percent a year since 1978, and more than 850 million people have been lifted out of poverty, an admirable record of poverty reduction.
  
  But China's per capita GDP is still very low (compared to rich countries), so China still has a lot of room and potential for further GDP growth.
  
  We need to appreciate these determined efforts to end poverty and hunger to ensure that people can fulfil their potential through sustainable consumption and production, managing the natural resources sustainably so that we can support the needs of the present and future generations, ensuring that people can enjoy prosperous and fulfilling lives and that economic, social and technological progress occurs to bring shared prosperity.
  
  Even at the best of times, economic developments, infrastructure building, human capital developments can be very difficult let alone in countries inflicted with violence/chaos or being undermined by others constantly.
  
  So we do need peace and stability to create certainty and confidence that will encourage investments, human capital developments, jobs creation to help to eradicate poverty and hunger, expanding the richness of human life in shared prosperity.
  
  We also cannot ignore inequality between countries, within countries and between women and men if we truly want to eradicate poverty and hunger.
  
  Indeed, knowing that there are gains from trade with increase of consumer surplus and producer surplus (the pie grows bigger and bigger) that make the trade-participating countries better off, all countries need to work cooperatively to achieve win-win outcomes, but there are some people (far too many) adopting antagonistic approach to scuttle these efforts to achieve win-win outcomes.
  
  We need all countries to work cooperatively to accomplish win-win outcomes, unilateralism and bullying will not work.
  
  All countries should have good relationship with one another to create peace and stability to allow all countries to develop, to eradicate poverty and hunger, create wealth (growing the pie bigger) and to bring shared prosperity to the people.
  
  So, indeed, there are many global problems (climate change, etc.) that need all countries accepting and respecting each other's system of government, and focus on cooperation and areas of global agreement that can be reached.
  
  People must be objective, understanding and assessing things/issues based on facts.
  
  After 42 years of economic developments, building infrastructure and developing human capital, China has a lot of experience/ knowledge to share and help other countries fighting poverty and this should be welcomed as there are more than 700 millions people in the world still live in poverty, so we cannot be complacent.
  
  BRI is part of the initiatives to help to fight poverty in many countries in Asia and elsewhere (remember there are more than 700 millions people in the world still live in poverty and I hope everyone agrees that these 700+ millions people have every right to lift themselves out of poverty, so we cannot be complacent.)
  
  With international cooperation and global efforts to combat poverty worldwide, we can look forward to the day when poverty is eliminated sooner rather than later.
  
  For CO2 emissions, here are CO2 emissions (in tons per capita) for some countries:
  Australia = 16.8, US = 16.1, Canada =16.1, South Korea = 13.6, Russia =12.1, Japan = 9.4, China = 8.0
  
  For RE (Renewable Energy), here are some data:
  United States: Total electricity = 4,322,038 GWh, Total RE = 637,076 GWh, RE % of total = 14.7%
  Japan: Total electricity = 1,057,976 GWh, Total RE = 158,822 GWh, RE % of total = 15.0%
  China: Total electricity = 7,142,200 GWh, Total RE = 1,739,400 GWh, RE % of total = 24.35%
  Germany: Total electricity = 514,860 GWh, Total RE = 237,610 GWh, RE % of total = 46.2%
  India: Total electricity = 1,550,564 GWh, Total RE = 261,790 GWh, RE % of total = 16.88%
  Australia: Total electricity = 256,563 GWh, Total RE = 37,205 GWh, RE % of total = 14.5%
  Canada: Total electricity = 667,438 GWh, Total RE = 433,597 GWh, RE % of total = 65.0%
  - aethelwulf e Oct 29, 2020
    
    Objective I am. Evidence.
    Read Why Nations Fail.
    Not hard. The BEST model for lifting millions from poverty is called capitalism.
    Thus look at Japan and S Korea. compare PRC and Taiwan.
    Its part of what PRC borrowed when they reformed c1980.
    Just didn’t want to go far as giving folks a vote.
    - Susan Robinson Oct 29, 2020
      
      We label China a communist country, but since 1978, China has a series of far-reaching market-economy reforms, China no longer follow communist command economic system.
      
      China is learning/ emulating other countries (like Singapore, South Korea) to embark on economic developments, build infrastructure, develop human capital, create jobs... not communist command economic system anymore...
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    - John Emery Oct 29, 2020
      
      Capitalism requires competition. In the U.S. major companies do all they can to establish monopoly power. In this time of Covid those capitalists who cry foul due to regulation are first in line for society to prop them up. Airlines fought for de-regulation for years and are now lobbying for subsidies. Is it democracy when we spend billions of dollars on elections and therefore the power of the dollar is greater than the will of the people? Is our government for the people when millions go without enough to eat while a class of billionaires who did not create anything but simply play investment games hoard money that should be put to work? Is America great when it does not rank #1 in any category and millions of it's citizens lack access to quality healthcare and education? Does it make sense to spend on military twice that of the closest competitor when defending our homeland is simpler than others as we have no wolves on our borders? Is killing millions of innocents around the world in unnecessary wars rather than caring for it's citizenry a democratic initiative? The U.S. is neither a true democracy nor a capitalist economy. Voter turnout is low, monied power dictates and capitalists feed at the trough of quasi socialism. Before we throw stones at China, we need to look in a mirror and address our own shortcomings.
      - Susan Robinson Oct 30, 2020
        
        The US spends more on military than Russia, China, India, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, and Brazil – combined.
        
        US spends trillions of dollars to attack/invade Iraq, etc (war crimes like gang-rape and murder of 14-year-old Iraqi girl and the murder of her family by US soldiers, Abu Ghraib torture, shooting down of Iran passenger Air Flight 655 by SM-2MR surface-to-air missile fired from USS Vincennes, etc) with millions being killed or injured or displaced as we have no wolves on US borders…indeed, it is insane.
        
        Indeed, millions of US citizens lack access to quality healthcare and education…and healthcare/ education costs will rise substantially in the future decades.
        
        We need determined efforts to end poverty and hunger to ensure that people can fulfil their potential through sustainable consumption and production, managing the natural resources sustainably so that we can support the needs of the present and future generations, ensuring that people can enjoy prosperous and fulfilling lives and that economic, social and technological progress occurs to bring shared prosperity.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    - Godfree Roberts Oct 29, 2020
      
      Neither Japan or S Korea developed under capitalism. Apart from China, no democratic country has ever developed its way out of poverty.
      - aethelwulf e Oct 29, 2020
        
        Dream on
        
        Godfree Roberts Oct 29, 2020
        
        I lived in both countries during their development phase. Neither was a democracy. Both were–and are–occupied American vassal states with formal democracies.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- lt lee Oct 29, 2020
  
  What responsible freedom exercised by whom?
  Trump and Foxnews proclaiming Covid-19 as a hoax. Police killing Black Americans left and right.
  What works?
  Millions died in the epidemic of despair in the past decade. And now hundreds of thousands died of Covid-19.
  - aethelwulf e Oct 29, 2020
    
    PRC v Taiwan.
    - lt lee Oct 29, 2020
      
      1. Please be specific. When does "Responsible freedom – heart of liberal democracy – works, emphatically" work under the ROC government? Always or some of the time? (BTW, Taiwan as an independent nation does not exist. It is still the ROC, i.e. the Republic of China.)
      
      2. Are you implying "Responsible freedom – heart of liberal democracy – works, emphatically" except the U.S? If so, why?
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
眼光 Canadian / China Oct 28, 2020

No comment every society is better that another. To USA protrays glaze or hidden society. What you do not see will not harm you . Each country trys to hide the bad or not right political or person problems from the public eyes . No better is better than another county, but all political systems should be for the people of that country . To me USA hides the bad from the people the same in different way for China. User more crime or gun deaths in the wonderful USA . That any other country in the world . Not safe unless you have money money in USA can buy you anything.
- Robert Wolff Oct 29, 2020
  
  All people are important, not just the people within your own country. Our national leaders not only have to serve the people within their own country, but also establish relationships with the leaders of other nations to maintain international relations that serve the whole Human Community on Earth.
  
  Otherwise, as proven through history, people go to war against their own countrymen (internal war) or as armies of nationalism against other nations (international war).
  
  What was clear to me when I worked on SALT II when at Rand Corporation in the 1970's was that scientists (who were considered "sane") from both Russia and the US understood the moral dilemma of pure nationalism and their leaders at the time listened to them and decided to respect their Humanism.
  
  We are now going through another Cold War with China, now with a blindly nationalistic President (Trump) without the morals nor the wisdom to avoid the worst type of confrontation (nuclear war).
  
  We scientists who took part in peace treaties and nuclear disarmament agreements a long time ago see the same military confrontation coming with China as we did decades ago with Russia, and the politicians in both the US and Russia listened to us and made rational decisions for the whole human species.
  
  The same issues are involved - power, economic dominance, national survival - and this is just another instance of the same cyclical phenomenon over human history. Unless we have regressed into a more uncivilized time over the last 40 decades, and war has again taken the ear of our national leaders over the survival of the human species, similar agreements between the US and China should be achievable as between Russia and the US in the past.
  
  The alternative is that we as a species have totally given up on the idea that it is best for us to work together for a better world, and that One [Political/Cultural] Power must prevail over all others like the US did in WWII, to establish another long period of peace and cooperation.
  
  Due to the advent of nuclear weapons and their proliferation over the last 75 years a peaceful agreed upon solution is mandatory, since there will never again be one dominating national power on Earth as a result of its winning in war against all other nations. A nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought.
  
  There is only one possible solution - cooperation, compromise, and consensus.
  - Susan Robinson Oct 29, 2020
    
    Indeed, a nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought.
    
    Indeed, there is only one possible solution - cooperation, compromise, and consensus.
    
    This is a multilateral world governed by UN Charter, so all countries (and their systems of governments) should co-exist mutually whilst not imposing one's own values/systems on others and not interfering internal affairs of other countries.
    
    All countries need to work cooperatively to achieve peace and prosperity, but there are some people (far too many) adopting hostile approach to scuttle these efforts in order to create violence and chaos.
    
    We need all countries to work cooperatively to accomplish win-win outcomes, unilateralism and bullying will not work.
    
    All countries (and their systems of governments) can co-exist mutually without interfering internal affairs of another countries and they can work cooperatively to resolve their differences to accomplish peace and prosperity.
    - Michael Public Oct 29, 2020
      
      "a nuclear war cannot be won"
      
      This is naïve and out of date thinking. There Us has prototype technology (laser based) that can down incoming ICBMS (they are too fast for interceptor missiles) within say a city radius. It is not operation ready, but will get there eventually. Russia and China will try follow suit but are behind on the research. If you have such a technology - you can theoretically win a nuclear war - especially if you strike first (treaties prevent this but can be breached) and/or have a large deployment of lasers. Dangerous days may be returning for the nuclear threat.
      - Susan Robinson Oct 29, 2020
        
        ROBERT WOLFF (who was part of the team working on SALT II (when at Rand Corporation in the 1970's))... and Robert was saying “….A nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought. There is only one possible solution - cooperation, compromise, and consensus.” showing human desire for all sides to cooperate to resolve differences to achieve peace…
        
        Even if US can win a nuclear war, what does that reflect for US leaders’ predatory behavior to use nuke to attack other countries?
        We need peace, not war.
        
        We need all countries to work cooperatively to accomplish peace and prosperity, unilateralism and bullying will not work.
        
        All countries (and their systems of governments) can co-exist mutually without interfering internal affairs of another countries and they can work cooperatively to resolve their differences to accomplish peace and prosperity.
        
        As highlighted by Robert, we all need cooperation, compromise, and consensus to achieve peace and prosperity.
        
        Michael Public Oct 30, 2020
        
        I agree with you we need peace. But factually speaking there are thousands of primed ICBMS that exist today in the US, Russia and China. One of the main things that historically prevented the launch of these things is that you cannot stop the response - no variable interceptor exists. But technology marches on and all three military powers would like to break the MAD parity and likely eventually will.
        
        My point is that in the near future we can return to a time when Cuban Missile Crises again occur - or even the use of nuclear weapons in war - as happened less than a century ago. We should not kid ourselves with Pollyanna talk that a nuclear war cannot be won - we should look at what is happening in the military realm and walk with eyes open here - because it will affect us all no-matter where we live.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Wolff Oct 28, 2020

I have started to absorb the philosophy of Confucius, which represents the current logic of the PRC CCP along with its additional ingestion of Marxism (the nation with the implementation, but not necessarily its invention, of the highest technology supersedes the other nations in production and war due to the power of technology when push comes to shove). To get this gist you have to study Confucius with the understanding of Marxism to understand what China is doing today, and why the US and the West are losing.

What surprises me is the level of regimentation Confucianism requires and the requirement for Virtue in Leadership and the discipline to serve others in Leadership position that requires, to be acceptable to the Han/Confucian followers as a viable leaders. It doesn’t surprise me they execute high level officials who fail in their moral duties to the people they rule.

Many similarities to Judeo-Christianity (“Reciprocity as a Virtue means, “Don’t do unto others what you would not want done to you” (the Jewish version of the Golden Rule as stated by Rabbi Hillel).

I am not surprised that the Rationalist Movement in Europe (German Reformation through the French Rationalist movement 1600’s – 1800’) was initiated by German and French Philosophers who were reading the Analects of Confucius written more than 2000 years prior. What this means is that Chinese Philosophy has had a marked impact on the West for over 400 years, but that the importance of that impact has not hit us like a ton of bricks until the current era in which you and I live.

But the amazing intellectual curiosity to me is that we in America are still split between Rationalism and the Revelatory philosophy of God by Evangelical Christians and Catholics (and the Trump Administration) that appeals to pure emotions rather than pure reason.

I am convinced the Chinese are laughing out loud about the lack of reason/rational thought involved today in America in choosing our leaders. We are also losing Europe and Africa and much of South America due to our display of emotionalism versus Rationalism.
- Susan Robinson Oct 29, 2020
  
  There are many races, many cultures and many languages in the world, so it is important for all these peoples to co-exist peacefully (we do not want wars let alone nuke war) whilst not imposing one's own values/systems on others and not interfering internal affairs of other countries.
  
  This is a multilateral world governed by UN Charter, so all countries (and their systems of governments) should co-exist mutually and peacefully and all countries are protected by UN Charter.
  
  Any countries that attack/invade illegally (like US/NATO attacking Iraq, Libya, etc. which are war crimes) must be brought to justice to uphold the rule of law.
  
  We need all countries to work cooperatively to accomplish peace and prosperity, unilateralism and bullying will not work.
  
  All countries (and their systems of governments) can co-exist mutually without interfering internal affairs of another countries and they can work cooperatively to resolve their differences to accomplish peace and prosperity.
  
  As highlighted by you, we all need cooperation, compromise, and consensus to achieve peace and prosperity.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/SYFLWfPzh

专制与民主体制的错误两分法

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

The Everlasting Mao

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

专制与民主体制的错误两分法

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification