Re: Even Under Democracy, China Doomed to Become Aggressor Nation



On Feb 13, 7:50 am, "Quadibloc" <jsav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I was reading a book last night which called itself a cultural history
of China. It mentioned that in a recent year, before Tienanmen Square,
but after the liberalization and economic boom in China, of 1000 young
people graduating from high school, only 6 could go to college.

On the BBC web site, I read today that China faces a big "brain
drain"; many people who study abroad do not return to China. The China
Daily noted that one cause might be a lack of suitable job
opportunities in China.

Naturally, they did not mention that people might not like returning
to a country where people live in fear of the secret police.

But China is a big country and a poor country. At the end of
colonialism, after the end of World War II, so many nice shiny
democracies were set up in Africa? Where are they now? Today, only
Botswana is left as having both free elections and a free press.

In a poor country, it is understandable that many people will be
tempted to take to stealing, but there is no room to be gentle with
them. So even if politics is democratic, certain characteristics of
law enforcement must be harsh compared to the way things are in the
rich democracies.

Countries in Latin America show another problem with democracy. People
will vote for governments that grab the wealth from the rich,
spreading it around - in such a way as to end capital formation. Even
under Communism in China, much money was invested in factories and
mines, even if by the government instead of capitalists. Seizing
property from foreign businesses is also popular with some elected
parties. Since these policies have disastrous long-term results, the
armies in those countries often overthrow left-wing elected
governments.

This book I was reading also said the Chinese people had suffered much
for China to become a world power. I think that much of their
sufferings were not needed for that, and were because their emperors,
or warlords, or Party leaders, were concerned with maintaining
personal power. But the fact is, they have suffered, and China is a
country with greater power and wealth today.

For that portion of what their sufferings have earned that China has
kept, it would be a terrible thing for it to be lost. And so, after
the Soviet Union fell, the United States did not jump at an
opportunity to attack China - for example, a pre-emptive nuclear
strike back when it had only one nuclear submarine, and it was in port
being repaired, at least according to TIME magazine.

Taiwan has shown friendliness to the United States, and it would be
hard for the United States to avoid protecting it.

Over much of history, in the Western world as well as the East, many
more people were intelligent enough to take higher education than
could do useful work that required higher education. A large company
that makes cars only needs a few people to design next year's model of
car, but many people to make many cars for its customers according to
that design. Some educated people can be doctors and lawyers; even
today, in the rich democracies, colleges have strict limits on how
many people can be trained in these professions. And, of course, there
are schoolteachers, who have never been paid very well.

As is well known from history, the leaders of unrest and revolution
tend to be young men who have gone to college, but face difficulties
in finding a job making use of - and rewarding - their talents.

If China has too many people wanting more education, why abolish the
characters, making it easier for *more* people to learn faster?

But this tragedy of history exists everywhere. Perhaps if a larger
portion of taxes were used to fund basic science research, newer
products would come into existence faster, making us all richer. But
taxes are high everywhere, and a welfare program for the *more*
fortunate is hard to justify.

In the Middle Ages in the West, clever people were mistrusted. Having
an economy that could absorb few of them, often clever people ended up
practicing some sort of fraud or thievery to make a living in a
different way than by heavy manual labor.

So, if democracy means a system that is expected to produce jobs of a
kind that don't exist, of course it will fail. Unhappy young men,
graduating from college under a democracy that built more colleges,
but could not make jobs for them, would turn to something else;
perhaps the Little Red Book once again.

And as for unhappy young men...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6346931.stm

No government or political system in China is going to be able to
extract itself from the mess the one-child policy is creating.

Countries can channel a certain portion of unrest among young men into
patriotism and xenophobia. Attitudes towards Japan and the United
States within China show that the government is trying this.

But this process can only go so far.

Taiwan is not big enough. Russia is strong and can defend itself.
Where are all these young men in China going to find brides?

I see an invasion of India in the future for China. Even if the CCP
decides to take a holiday in Switzerland in return for money from the
CIA, and hands the country over to a democratic government designed in
the U.S.A., it will not change this.

And, of course, the tragedy is that no one else could grow enough food
to feed China, and so it wasn't as if the one-child policy was a
stupid idea.

Who do we blame for the fact that China was not divided by mountains
in the interior, so it was not racked by wars? Or that it did not have
frequent famines due to crop failure, so as to keep the numbers of its
people further below what could be grown in a good year?

The United States and Canada only recently, as history goes, stole
their land from the Indians. But technology grows so quickly these
days that in a few hundred years, when it is their turn to become like
China, maybe they will be able to use methane and ammonia from comets
to grow their food. Maybe someday humans will be able to live with a
lower birthrate without disasters and tumults (if not a shortage of
girls, at least a collapse of old-age pensions).

John Savard


.