Wowowowo slow down,
I never asked for democracy nor would i ever want democracy for my home.
Occupy Central...News, Photos & Videos ONLY!!
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
- Status
Wowowowo slow down,
I never asked for democracy nor would i ever want democracy for my home.
wtlh
Junior Member
You do notice that the top 5 on the list are also very socialist, some of the most socialist countries on this planet, whose beliefs and ways many of the Americans are staunchly against?
7 out of the 10 above has some of the best social welfare and hand-out systems to its citizens on the planet. Does the list also indicate that socialism is the way forward?
Also, just a curiosity, what happened to 11 and 12 on the list, why is New Zealand included in your list but not the other two in front?
Further more, the total population of all of the above countries added is less than that of a big Chinese province, but with a total land mass larger than that of the entire China, with all the natural resources that comes along. The top 5 on the list each has a population less than that of a medium to small sized Chinese town...
Last edited:
wtlh
Junior Member
Chinese exceptionalism to you just means "the Chinese does not follow the American ways". And you imply that "all people in the world" should all share and believe the set of values and customs comparable with that of the Anglo-American like you.
It is rather absurd to call this exceptionalism in the same light as "American exceptionalism", when the Chinese people never have insisted "other people" in the world should share their values, and when they have always insisted that different countries have different values, and Chinese way may not and should not be their way.
Anyone who does not share the same value as you are either nationalists or evil, what does it make you? And what does this "my value/god is greater than yours, my value/god is universal" type attitude looks like?
Every culture grew up from their own unique set of natural environments and historical circumstances, and therefore this makes every culture unique. There are a set of values common to humans, but different cultures place different levels of priorities on those values.
The Chinese, for example, have always regarded the common interest of the larger group to be more important than the interest of an individual, and has valued obedience and respect to one's elder and senior more than individualist self-determination, and believed that leads to better social harmony, unity and cooperation. Most do not value individual self-determination above that of social harmony, and would in fact regard a person who always insists to be an odd thumb rather rude and disruptive, and do not see it as a positive trait.
The Western Europeans, due to their own unique set of historical and environmental circumstances has arrived a different set of priority to values, and they place the interest of individuals to have higher priority than that of a group. And a person who insists on being different is valued, and treated as a positive trait.
And there are a lot of differences even within each larger cultural groups. Different countries in Europe see different priorities in different values. Italians and Spanish place greater emphasis on families than northern europeans and are more likely to listen and obey to what their parents or grandparents tells them, on things some of the northern europeans may regard as non of their business. There are huge differences between the values of the rural and urban USA for example, and many are not compatible.
Generally speaking, civilisations which grew out of mostly of farming communities value common interests of a group more than that of an individual, because the power of an individual is very limited, and cooperation and unity holds keys to success, be it irrigation projects or harvest times; civilisations that grew more out of merchant communities tend to value individual rights more, because without withholding individual rights, fare trading becomes a major issue.
Therefore, when on occasions where group interest collides with individual interests, farming based civilisations will have the tendency to put greater importance on the overall interest of the group over the rights of the individual to his own interest, while merchant based civilisations have the tendency to greater importance of guarding the individual interest and rights over the overall interest the the group.
There are nothing wrong with all those differences, and there are no rights or wrongs. Differences is natural, and should be cherished and not opposed.
It is absurd to think that you, your culture and your value are somehow at a more advanced stage of development, and all human race will become like you when they reach the level of wealth you have. No, they won't, and most would be offended if you think they should.
Let it go, just accept other culture do not necessarily share your value priorities. No need to act out like some kind of religious missionary.
Last edited:
Seems I forgot to put the lock on last night.
12 hours cooling off time starting now
12 hours cooling off time starting now
OK open again
Please less Political Theory and more just concentrate on the events in Hong Kong
Please less Political Theory and more just concentrate on the events in Hong Kong
Doombreed
Junior Member
Understand the need to get back to Hong Kong. But I would like to make one last point.
Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. All east asian cultures. Are the Chinese so fundamentally different to them? How is it, when these east asian cultures that shares tremendous amount of values with China, they are still able to produce vibrant democracies. When their social development allows.
Again, no one is telling you that China should go democratic now. But what you and some of the other posters seems to imply is that somehow China and the Chinese are on a divergent social development trend to the other east asian cultures.
That somehow the Chinese through her "own unique set of natural environments and historical circumstances", will never be receptive to democracy.
What I'm getting at is that Hong Kong has reached the same social development level as Japan, Korea and Taiwan. Therefore the people naturally seeks out self determination and democracy. When mainland China reaches the same social development level, I deduce that they will have similar needs.
You seems to think otherwise. And that I call exceptionalism.
For me, I do think that it's possible for China to implement a similar democratic system to that implemented in other East Asian countrie.
The problem is that I do not think that such a system is good for us. It is fundamentally a flawed system. Many westerners like to boast that they have great faith and confidence in their political system, in their democratic institutions. They simply resent the politicians, the president, the congress, etc. They are evil but the system is not.
Now answer this question: why is that a supposedly fantastic system produces only leaders and politicians the people dislike so much? Why they can rise to power, in the first place, if the people are supposedly the ones who choose them to? Why is that in a few years' time after an election a president's support simply plummets? Why is that when these leaders who must be accountable to the people, keep introducing hugely unpopular policies and start wars and the people who sent them to power cannot stop them? Why is that democracy in many countries have been reduced to a game between the wealthy and powerful, and a game of choosing between the bad and the worse? Furthermore, why has not democracy delivered to the people in South America, in Africa, in the vast developing world after decades of implementation? Why has democracy even failed to solve problems in even the most developed nations? Why didn't democratic system, being boasted as the single ultimate political system for mankind, prevent the financial crisis or avert it? However, countries like Singapore and China were the ones to first recover from it?
If a machine (democracy) produces a certain type of goods (politicians and their policies), and majority of these goods are flawed at the very least and sometimes totally dysfunctional, how can someone continue to claim that the machine is fantastic and supposedly the best machine out there?
Doombread mentioned that some of the happiest countries in the world are democracies. But unsurprisingly these are also some of the wealthiest countries by GDP per capita.
Now look at that list. Some of the LEAST happy countries are democracies, too! Unsurprisingly, they're also some of the poorest countries.
So, is it democracy that's delivering happiness, or material standard of living?
Some of the least corrupt countries are democracies, but some of the most corrupt countries are democracies, too.Interestingly, China as an one-party authoritarian state fares better than India, the largest democracy in the world, in terms of corruption. And China's ranking has been consistently improving throughout the years as her economy develops.
If one takes a look around the world, there's a very strong positive correlation between corruption and poverty. Places like Hong Kong and Singapore which are hardly democratic by Western standards, are among the least corrupt places in the world, and they're also among the richest cities in the world. Some of the most democratic countries are the most corrupt as well.
My grandparents often starved, and lived in almost absolute poverty and they're illiterate as well. Today my family owns several properties, a car, and is able to send me overseas to study. I worry about getting into the best universities in the world, not how to put food on my table or where to sleep in the night, or how to pay the bills when I'm sick. My family's progress is hardly unique. In fact there are many others out there in China who made an even greater "leap forward" than us. And I'm not so restricted as many would imagine. In fact I feel much freer back home than in Singapore because there's not much strict rules. You got to realise even chewing gum is banned in Singapore. I can travel around in China, choose any type of convenient transport, purchase whatever goods I wish to have, go for all kinds of entertainment activities, discuss politics with friends or others privately or on the Internet, and I don't need to worry about being taken away by secret police in the night. That doesn't happen unless you try to topple the regime--in which case I would say you'll be dealt with according to the law in other countries as well.
Americans often criticise China when the CCP detains or charges people trying to topple the regime. They see that simply as challenging a political party like one might do in the US towards the Democrats or Republicans.
But they're not the same thing. In China the party is the regime. A better analogy would be for someone to try to make the US a communist country. Or an Islamic one. Now guess where he'll end up?
solarz
Brigadier
It's telling that you can only resort to fallacies to support your arguments. It would only be Chinese "exceptionalism" if every other people in the world loved democracy, which is obviously not the case, no matter how fervently you believe it to be so.
Your entire argument is based on the presumption that Democracy is inherently Good and is desired by everyone. In other words, your arguments are theological.
Hong Kong may have reached the same level of economic development as Japan, Korea, and Taiwan when they transitioned into democracies but its social development is not at the same level as it had a very different history. Hong Kong has been under foreign colonial rule for much longer than any of those countries until much more recently, under very different originating circumstances, and it is only a city that has always been part of some other greater political entity.
Chinese society, and Hong Kong being part of it, does indeed have democratic needs, the CCP recognizes that and has in fact been addressing those needs by implementing democratic elements in the political process in various ways across the country including in Hong Kong. The details of when and how democratic elements are implemented in the political process in Hong Kong and whether it will be beneficial in practical terms are what the Occupy Central protesters are disagreeing about with the Hong Kong, Chinese governments, with other segments of the Hong Kong population, and somewhat aptly and ironically among themselves.
The Occupy Central protesters echo the opinions of a significant segment but far from a majority of the Hong Kong population. The protesters themselves also illustrated the problems of democratic political processes and significant differences of opinion among themselves when they had to cancel a poll at the last minute they were planning back in October due to internal disagreements regarding its purpose and insufficient preparation. All of these facts in addition to the protesters lacking a vision on how practical matters in Hong Kong should be handled differently show that they do not have anything beneficial to offer Hong Kong other than as a pressure valve and a reminder that there is discontent among a segment of the population.
- Status