Miscellaneous News

[FriedRiceNSpice]

There is a difference based on what your parameters of "meritocracy" are. If its simply recognizing someone for their talents and giving them a job commensurate to their talent, then every society in the world had meritocracy and China was not unique. Any general on the field can recognize a brave soldier and give them an officership, after which they rise through the ranks and likewise any court official can recognize a servant is sharper than they look and teach them to read/write, after which they begin their ascension through the court. What set China apart from the rest of the world was precisely its examination system.

My history on classical Greece is hazy, but for Rome people only had two avenues to reach a position of power outside of being born into it. It was either joining the military or being sponsored by a member of the nobility, ie. patronage. So yes, in essence "meritocracy" was practiced, but the nobility were the ones having final say on who would rise unless you were charismatic enough as a military leader to lead your own coup.

What set China apart from Rome during periods of dynastic collapse or barbarian conquest, was that by basing promotion on the examinations and creating a class of bureacrats, meritocracy was institutionalized. Successive empires after Western Rome collapsed claimed to the be the new Rome, but never emulated its system succesfully. When a successive dynasty overtook the previous or if the barbarians after finishing their conquest settled down to rule, they had a complete guidebook already laid out for them on how to administer the realm.

The civil service examination system is not equivalent to institutionalized meritocracy. It was an institution created in an attempt to solve the problem of preserving meritocratic governance over successive generations, and despite being the best solution conceived to date, ultimately failed. The system may have worked for the first half of a dynasty's lifespan, but would fall apart due to corruption, bribery, and the purchasing of offices.

In theory, China during and after the Tang dynasty did not have a class of nobility or aristocracy, but instead a class of scholar officials arose. In practice, government offices were monopolized by the scholar official class, as only this class had the resources and wealth to finance the long and lengthy education required to pass the civil service examinations. There was no more social mobility than in Greece or Rome - you were either born into a family with means or you were not. Even a basic education to attain rudimentary level of literacy was not within the means for over 95% of the population. Despite the imperial examination system, high government offices and wealth would, over the course of the dynasty, be concentrated in the hands of only a few dozen families.

Ultimately, the dynasties that adopted the civil examination system (Tang - Ming) did not last any longer than the Han. At the beginning of the dynasty, when wealth/land had been redistributed and power centralized, you had a relatively large degree of social mobility and meritocratic rule. However, over the course of generations, wealth and power would be monopolized by a small number of families, social mobility becomes impossible, the livelihoods of the common people suffers, and the state becomes weak and ineffectual.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

At least Hong Kong equivalent to Bubba will pop his cherry if they haven’t already…

Bubba Gump?

Actually HK prisons are probably the best in Asia. Probably even better than the US. Stuff like that is super uncommon. The biggest problem is guard abuse, but is there any country where that isn’t an issue?

Better than US prisons? US prisons are probably the worst in the Western world. If HK prisons are anything like US prisons, then he is seriously f**ed. No pun intended.

 

[fatzergling]

The civil service examination system is not equivalent to institutionalized meritocracy. It was an institution created in an attempt to solve the problem of preserving meritocratic governance over successive generations, and despite being the best solution conceived to date, ultimately failed. The system may have worked for the first half of a dynasty's lifespan, but would fall apart due to corruption, bribery, and the purchasing of offices.

In theory, China during and after the Tang dynasty did not have a class of nobility or aristocracy, but instead a class of scholar officials arose. In practice, government offices were monopolized by the scholar official class, as only this class had the resources and wealth to finance the long and lengthy education required to pass the civil service examinations. There was no more social mobility than in Greece or Rome - you were either born into a family with means or you were not. Even a basic education to attain rudimentary level of literacy was not within the means for over 95% of the population. Despite the imperial examination system, high government offices and wealth would, over the course of the dynasty, be concentrated in the hands of only a few dozen families.

Ultimately, the dynasties that adopted the civil examination system (Tang - Ming) did not last any longer than the Han. At the beginning of the dynasty, when wealth/land had been redistributed and power centralized, you had a relatively large degree of social mobility and meritocratic rule. However, over the course of generations, wealth and power would be monopolized by a small number of families, social mobility becomes impossible, the livelihoods of the common people suffers, and the state becomes weak and ineffectual.

Mao found the answer a long time ago by socializing the land, and distributing it to farmers if they worked the land.

The buying and selling of titles and land will inevitably lead to a landowning elite. To bypass the cycle, the land must be held in common and distributed according to need.

To ensure all citizens have the ability to participate in governance, mass education is needed. But as you pointed out, due to the low productivity of the pre-industrial era, higher education was limited to the richest of peasants and officials (say 2-3% of population). Thanks to industrialization, mass education is now possible.

The (relative) shortage of laborers and the presence of cheap coal deposits in 1700s Britain made manufacturing via replacing labor with steam engines (which were discovered thousands of years ago) feasible. Interestingly enough, with the importation of cheap labor, we are seeing the reverse happen in developed countries, with the feasibility of servants and hand-picked agriculture.

Perhaps pure meritocracy was not possible during the pre-industrial era due to material limitations, but our current society has much more potential for such a system. This is not to mention the massive leaps in political and social organization that accompany this (seriously, China never had a public schooling system until the PRC era).

Bubba Gump?

Better than US prisons? US prisons are probably the worst in the Western world. If HK prisons are anything like US prisons, then he is seriously f**ed. No pun intended.

The combination of legalized slavery in prison plus a localized justice system lead to US prisons in the South becoming defacto slave holdings.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Mao found the answer a long time ago by socializing the land, and distributing it to farmers if they worked the land.

The buying and selling of titles and land will inevitably lead to a landowning elite. To bypass the cycle, the land must be held in common and distributed according to need.

To ensure all citizens have the ability to participate in governance, mass education is needed. But as you pointed out, due to the low productivity of the pre-industrial era, higher education was limited to the richest of peasants and officials (say 2-3% of population). Thanks to industrialization, mass education is now possible.

The (relative) shortage of laborers and the presence of cheap coal deposits in 1700s Britain made manufacturing via replacing labor with steam engines (which were discovered thousands of years ago) feasible. Interestingly enough, with the importation of cheap labor, we are seeing the reverse happen in developed countries, with the feasibility of servants and hand-picked agriculture.

Perhaps pure meritocracy was not possible during the pre-industrial era due to material limitations, but our current society has much more potential for such a system. This is not to mention the massive leaps in political and social organization that accompany this (seriously, China never had a public schooling system until the PRC era).


The combination of legalized slavery in prison plus a localized justice system lead to US prisons in the South becoming defacto slave holdings.

Mao didn't invent the system - most Chinese dynasties began with land reform and redistribution of land. Yet less than 100 years after Mao, real estate in China has already contributed greatly to wealth inequality in China. Thankfully the central government recognized the problem and took steps to deflate the real estate market.

Modern abundance and technology should enable the realization of a more meritocratic society than possible in the past. Let's hope the CPC will be able to find a solution to the age old problem of maintaining a meritocracy that does not ultimately devolve into a plutocracy or oligarchy.

 

[fatzergling]

Mao didn't invent the system - most Chinese dynasties began with land reform and redistribution of land. Yet less than 100 years after Mao, real estate in China has already contributed greatly to wealth inequality in China. Thankfully the central government recognized the problem and took steps to deflate the real estate market.

Modern abundance and technology should enable the realization of a more meritocratic society than possible in the past. Let's hope the CPC will be able to find a solution to the age old problem of maintaining a meritocracy that does not ultimately devolve into a plutocracy or oligarchy.

Land socialization and the people's commune system were instituted to prevent the concentration seen in the past dynasties and to pool together resources for mechanization and modernization. It is true redistribution of titles applied to each dynasty, but as I described before, allowing buying, selling, and a mechanism to enforce such transactions will inevitably lead to land concentration.

The importation of American management techniques, American corporate structures and American styles of housing procurement (instead of European social housing) has done immeasurable damage, though mitigated, to China's development. Perhaps with the US weakening, China will work out more appropriate organizational structures for its industry and housing.\

Tbh the most dangerous part of development, being coopted by the global economic system, has passed. Although the task will be difficult and 100% involve failures, given the stagnation of the developed world, China sort of have to find a solution by themselves.

May I suggest another thing to consider: the old ideas of economic democracy and workers' control? Mao's attempt during the CR failed largely due to poor education of workers, but with mass education and a strong computer industry, these old concepts that socialist thinkers dreamed of could finally be feasible?

 

[gelgoog]

Easy to say shit, very hard to actually prove that they means what they say. Really everyone knows that the leadership of the EU and Japan are a bunch to cucks so ultimately it’s either put up or STFU because this saying crap and doing nothing routine is getting old

That French report is from a left-wing opposition party, and not even the biggest opposition party.

 

[TPenglake]

It was an institution created in an attempt to solve the problem of preserving meritocratic governance over successive generations, and despite being the best solution conceived to date, ultimately failed.

How could it have failed when it, although not entirely on its own, was one of the largest contributing factors to China's continued territorial and cultural unity for over 2000 years? Obviously all government systems in antiquity and the medieval world could be considered failures if you hold them by the standards of the modern world. But if we're talking about the purpose they served in those days and how it ultimately evolved into the modern CPC, we can say the imperial system of Dynastic China fulfilled its purpose in spades.

The system may have worked for the first half of a dynasty's lifespan, but would fall apart due to corruption, bribery, and the purchasing of offices.

Well mind you, the PRC as we know it today is only 76 years old. The Ming Dynasty lasted some 275 odd years before meeting its end, whose to say the same fate won't befall the PRC in that timeframe? I mean 200 years is a long time. If the whole point here is to argue that all the failures of China's previous dynasties have been rectified by the PRC then I'm of the opinion making such speculation is moot, since such a hypothesis will only be truly tested and proven by the time when, nevermind us, even most of our great great grandchildren will be long dead.

Human nature is what it is and no matter the culture or how great the Empire, decadence and decay always follow and I'm sure the PRC is no less vulnerable to such a stage in a civilization's political path. However, so long as the core principle of bestowing leadership and positions based on competence, established all the way back in antiquity, is preserved through the cycles of rise and collapse then China will endure.

At least I think that's the gist of what we're trying to argue here, but even if not that's my two cents.

 

[Moonscape]

Well before 200 years, humanity will either have achieved AGI and post-scarcity, or destroyed itself in one way or another. Stagnation is no longer an option.

 

[jiajia99]

The rhetoric is domestic political spinning. These people will make an U-Turn as soon as Trump leaves and everything will revert back to the usual narrative.

Which is why an economic collapse is necessary in some cases to blast through the stupid rhetoric and make these people actually fear for their lives first. Trying to deprogram these people from the matrix can only happen under extreme circumstances. It’s going to take a while to fix but the damage Trump is doing will be permanent so their may be some hope for change

 

[GulfLander]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1944221760045609260

....

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1943651795282084202