Re: Democracy with Chinese characteristics

This will have to be brief for I'm about to relocate for a few days.

PaPaPeng <PaPaPeng@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:13:13 GMT, Haines Brown
<brownh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Which part of the States are you from?

Hartford, CT

it just an inevitable phase in the ages old cycle of dynastic
founding, growth, stability, senescence and eventual decay?

An average Dynasty has a life cycle of 250 years.

The Chinese world view has long been enamored of dynastic cycles, but
I am not impressed: a) There may be dynastic cycles, but focusing on
them may force into obscurity other and perhaps more important aspect
of Chinese history, such as social and economic history; b) The cycles
tended to be relevant to a self-contained China, but China today
participates actively in a broad world, c) Arguably, the days of
feudal dynasties are over and this is a new age in which different
historical forces are at play, d) I don't care for what is called
"covering-law explanation" in historiography (where particulars
acquire meaning simply by subsuming them under some general law).

What this new emperor brought was peace. With that peace the energy
and vigor of the people would be eough to bring prosperity and
innovation.

I'm not sure to what emperor you refer, but in terms of the
traditional dynastic cycle view, you seem right in that the Huang Di
enjoyed the mandate of heaven (good luck?) as long as his rule brought
peace, which in particular included social justice. So, in simple
terms, the Confucian idea is that if you don't treat folks right, your
days are numbered. Do I have this right? If so, I suppose that remains
true today.

Now we come to this point

a potential danger that China will end up with a significant class
of people who own means of production

A principal cause of the downfall of ALL dynasties was indeed the
accummulation of land by the landlord class to the exclusion of the
mass of peasantry.

A petty technical point. When today people speak of owning means of
production they usual distinguish "petty private production" (such as
small farmers), and big capital, the capitalists. The political
implications of this distinction are important. The problem with
peasant production seems to be that it is inherently inefficient and
that peasant culture naturally clings to their "god's little
acre". There are examples of today of petty producers deciding to
re-collectivize in order to increase their income, so the peasant
problem may not be insurmountable. Capitalists, however, are in a
different situation. Unlike peasant production, capitalism is
inherently dynamic and expansive by nature. That implies an
increasingly difficult problem.

I am optimistic that modern China has the solution in assigning
ownership of all land to itself, the state.

Agreed, but the real issue may be capitalism, not petty private
agricultural production.

China must never adopt the direct elections of it leaders for the
task of governance is way too serious and difficult for the passions
of an excited population at election campaign to choose. I know you
(Haines) will disagree on this. But the results on the ground, that
of between what is happening in China and thst happening in the rest
of the "democratic" world, are real and compelling.

Yes (of course) I do disagree. You describe what I take to be a kind
of meritocracy, and that implies capable (and perhaps dedicated)
people will be in charge. However, I would argue that this leadership
must be held accountable, although direct election may not be the only
way. Some quick thoughts:

In Ancient Greece, a dictator (which they normally had) would be put
to trial at the end of his term, and if he did poorly, he paid a heavy
price for it. I mention this only to illustrate that there may be a
variety of ways to ensure accountability.

Another point is that the world is rapidly moving in a democratic
direction, and this has little to do with political fashion, but the
fact that the working class today has real (or potential) power. You
can't run a modern state without taking people's needs into account
and draw upon their willing support.

You may imply that the mass of people are fickle, and that must be a
concern. But, as I suggested before, the aim of democracy must be the
development of the mass of people so that they acquire wisdom. Is this
possible? I really believe it is. When people en masse act
irresponsibly is it not when they face severe crisis and/or are swept
away by a demagogue or gullibly swallow propaganda? I have great
confidence in people otherwise.

A technical difficulty that troubles me is that I see societies as
emergent phenomena, which means that social wholes have needs and
capacities that can't be reduced to the sum of the individuals who
make them up. That means political leadership can't mechanically
respond to just what the mass of people want, for most people do not
have direct involvement at the various levels of the social
whole. While people can become more enlightened about the needs of the
social whole and to a degree selfless in their desires, in the
existing world that only limits the effect of the contradiction, not
eliminate it. I can only assume that people must act on the basis of
their real circumstances, which are not the same as the circumstances
of social wholes. A simple example: you want to have civilians
micro-manage generals.

I don't have an answer to this conundrum. While we are social beings,
our social existence can never encompass wholes that extend
significantly beyond the scope of our experience, and today that
whole is becoming global. The only answer seems to be to delegate
authority and power to people whom you manage to hold accountable, but
only in the long run. I'm an advocate of direct democracy, but have to
admit it has practical limits at the higher levels of society or in
specialized government agencies.

--

Haines Brown
KB1GRM
ET1(SS) U.S.S. Irex 482
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Capital Includes Goods in Stock
    ... That will be news to the capitalists... ... >> Then you do agree that the line of credit increases production for ... function of credit for the buyer are much the same, ... Then neither are consumer goods in producers' hands. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE TO $120 AN HOUR!!
    ... >society with two people, Robinson and Friday. ... >capitalists, and assume perfect competition. ... >continuously differentiable production functions. ... > which they can exchange with each other, namely, labour, and the ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Capital and Mark Monsons Land
    ... all gains by unions and such which control wages but not ... income of all workers fell, ... Knowledge and a mode of production that consumes most of their ... workers would not be relying on capitalists to ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation....
    ... > the economic rent of natural resources for public purposes other than ... > No. Capitalists seek private appropriation of publicly created value ... > fundamentally socialists or capitalists. ... > landowner privilege and taxation of production, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Media backlash against furniture abuse ......
    ... "what always makes me laugh about that particular production is the peasant ... who looks like he's selling rats on a stick." ...
    (rec.music.opera)