UKC

I have been listening with interest to John Humphreys series of reports about China. Alas, all he seems to be able to bang on about is how China is a communist state and should embrace democracy. I believe the USA also has a similarly dim view of any non-democratic state that doesn't bend over and kiss it's ass.

Who are we to dictate our chosen preference of government and human rights, when our own house in many respects is shambolic? Is it not rather hypocritical?

In reply to EeeByGum:


Loving your work there

In reply to EeeByGum: I think it's fairly obvious that neither democracy or communism lasts for ever, before something crashes, it's a more a question of the quality of life for those living in it between the various eras. Where would you rather be, would this innocent thread started in a Chinese internet cafe be block by their state? Almost certainly a yes.

In reply to summo:

Possibly, but it is worth pointing out that where as Facebook and MySpace are blocked, the Chinese have their own in-house version that I believe is quite free and open.

You certainly would be free to discuss the government in a cafe with friends without interference.

In reply to EeeByGum:

Whilst the state monitored and blocked anything they didn't like, whilst making a note of your name!

In reply to summo:


Actually that's just not true. In fact it's a load of rubbish.

Have a look at this clever map from xkcd:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/online_communities_2.png

See the two huge "countries", each several times the size of twitter, called "QQ" and "Happy Farm"? Those are Chinese social networking systems. They don't register much with us because their content is written in languages which our search engines don't pick up for our searches, but they are truly colossal systems and growing very, very fast.

In reply to niggle: are you suggesting that the state does not monitor, nor intervene on these?

In reply to summo:


Not at all. The Chinese state certainly monitors internet use.

And so does ours.

And the US.

And every other state, as part of their responsibility for monitoring telecommunications.

QQ have tried to implement filters in the past to spot kewords and censor content, but after complaints from their users the filters were removed.

In reply to EeeByGum:


This kind of argument lends comfort to dictators. There's nothing subjective about human rights. Every human needs them. And to say so is not necessarily to fail to "respect other cultures".

As to hypocrisy, hypocrisy is vice's tribute to virtue; it's better to be a hypocrite than an out-and-out bastard. But of course we could do better, and should.

In reply to summo:

Bit like here then really

In reply to Duncan Bourne:


I would say that the reaction in China(by the state) is a little more heavy handed if you over step the mark though. How many of the UK protest over the past few years would the Chinese have tolerated? I bet Chinese fireman wouldn't strike!

I'm not saying the West has all the solutions, but where would you rather be?

In reply to summo:

Why do you assume that the Chinese state does monitor and intervene? There is more monitoring and CCTV in this country than I saw when I visited Chengdu in Western China. I also saw more police at Manchester Airport than I saw during my entire 10 day stay in China.

In reply to EeeByGum:

Because democracy is the worst system in the world apart from all the alternatives.

In reply to EeeByGum: perhaps I'm wrong and what I read or hear in the UK's free press is incorrect. I've never been so I certainly won't speculate on the number of Police there or how they operate. Is China not well known for it large number of plain clothes member of the Communist Party supervising things?

In reply to EeeByGum:

'the west' isnt infatuated with democracy - its infatuated with elections. beyond that things aret much different to anywhere else.

as for china: they certainly monitor the net. sometimes there are ways around it, but they get shut down and reinvented continuously.
most net cafes in china now demand ID.

another thing with china: its not a total-democratic state. elections exist at a very base level for things like work place representatives, farm collectives etc.
true, you have to be sanctioned to run (no different in the west) but electing representatives is not alien to china.

a big reason given by the CCP is that the population isnt informed enough to be involved with running a country. this excuse is quoted regularly - most famously after the tiananmen incident.

anyone who spends much time in china may question whether democracy would be effective there. as has long been, moving a unified china forward seems to work best with a heavy hand. the education standards just arent sufficient to involve everyone in the system. despite what telly shows - 70% of china is near-subsistance rural and 20% are illiterate.

what is clear is that china separates capitalism from democracy in a way that works.

In reply to summo:
Now I assume that you have been to China and witnessed this first hand. Otherwise you are merely repeating what has been told to you by our media. Correct?

To be honest I have no idea how many of our protests, which really have been very few in recent years, would have been tolerated by the Chinese, especially seeing as how our protests haven't done anything to change the status quo. Possibly the last thing to have an effect was the petrol strike.

Personally I would rather be here it is where I grew up and I can still drink from a tap without catching some stomach bug and get reasonable health care. Politically it wouldn't make much difference.
Ask yourself would you be able to protest in this country, as a muslim, about 9/11 or American policy without finding yourself up as a terrorist? If I believed that 9/11 was justified (which I don't) and I said so I would be acting illegally by promoting terrorism. It seems to me that our freedom of speech is conditional.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Well said.

In reply to Duncan Bourne: I think protesting in agreement with a terrorist event in the UK is a little different to basic protests for democracy in China? Both would of course not be tolerated, but for differing reasons. True, I can only go on what I read and see in the press, but even if I visited China for a month, I would only get that holiday feel for a place and not see the real nation beneath.

In reply to summo:
My point is not that China is some wonderful place of freedom. But that we stand and shout isn't China/communism/etc. bad for curbing freedom of speech while we blithly give away our own freedoms without a seconds thought.
For example did you know that it is illegal in this country to film the police on duty? ostensibly an anti-terrorism gimmick, but effectively if you see a police action that you think is illegal then it is illegal for you to record the evidence.

In reply to summo:

Horses for courses. It depends on where you are standing

In reply to summo:


What makes you think that the press is free here? Murdoch? Lebedev? The Barclay brother? Sure no particular agenda there apart from selling papers.

Regards

D

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

so you would suggest that the Chinese justify their anti democracy action the same as an extreme muslim terrorist would justify killing a few thousand innocents? I know the Chinese can be hardline, but even they wouldn't take it that far, would they?

In reply to Dauphin:

Much more free than some then, every editor has influence, some from the readership to tell them what they want to hear, others from advertiser or owners, or even for a future busines deal or to become a peer etc.. But the UK press is varied enough and invasive enough to 'almost' guarantee that somewhere the truth will out.

In reply to summo:

Ha ha!!! Now there is a joke. The British "free" press! Owned and run by mogals with a message to push and journalists who say what they like without any form of challenge.

What is worse? Influential politicians pushing their dogma via the press or influential newspaper mogals and journalists pushing their dogma?

You will be telling me that the hysteria drummed up over the MMR vaccine was based on clear thinking, the will to publish the truth and general common sense?

In reply to EeeByGum: save your rant, read my reply dauphin above ^^^^^^^

In reply to summo:


Are you sure that that's not the case in China?

In reply to niggle:
Probably, but when wrongs are committed in the UK there is a fighting chance of justice - eventually. In China is same true, atrocities may go public, but what is the end result?

In reply to summo:


Lengthy prison sentences?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8492664.stm

In reply to EeeByGum:

You seem to be confusing the terms "free" and "impartial".

In reply to summo:

What I would say is that the Chinese justify their stance as being against terrorism and for the protection of the state. Same as us.

In reply to summo:

I admire your faith in the justice system

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

It always is. We're free in the sense that no one has discovered how to actually control the speech centres of someone's brain, but not in the sense that you can say what you want without repercussions.

In reply to EeeByGum:

Democracy is rubbish. It's just less rubbish than any alternative.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

It's far from perfect, but would you rather stand before a court here on some kind of public disorder charge or in Russia, Zimbawe, China, Iran.. to name but a few?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Maybe. How does the man on the street tell the difference?

In reply to EeeByGum:

The difference between a free press and an impartial press? An impartial press is one in which no sides are taken. A free press is one in which sides are taken, with the freedom to express ideas which may run contrary to those accepted by the government, and make criticisms of government.

One of the key differences is the tolerance towards criticism of the Government. Every paper in the UK, regardless of ownership and political orientation, regularly criticises government activities, and does so knowing that the editors and journalists can do so with little risk of being imprisoned. The MPs expenses scandal is a fine example of the benefits to the public of a free press - wrong-doing on the part of MPs - our elected legislators - has been exposed and actions taken to correct those wrong-doings.

In reply to EeeByGum:

Uses his common sense? They are different things entirely as Tony has explained.

In reply to summo:
Actually if I was on a public disorder charge then I would rather stand trial in South Africa, Denmark, Holland, New Zealand etc. than Britain.
Ironic as it seems SA actually have one of the best judiciary systems, or so I have been lead to believe from reports I have read.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Would that not depend on the city and the colour of your skin? I don't think SA has moved that far forward yet!!

In reply to summo:
Again ironically not. You would thinks so wouldn't you?

In reply to EeeByGum:
Interesting nobody notes our own type of democracy.
What we have in the UK is not true (or Athenian) democracy, where we all rule, but parliamentary democracy, where we vote for people who will rule for us. As such they can (and for anyone who's ever written to their MP will know) completely ignore us.
A more Athenian model runs in Switzerland, where any petition with more than (I think) 10,000 signatures triggers a referendum, and if both a majority of people and a majority of cantons approve, the law is passed and the parliament is powerless to stop it.
However, it's not so wonderful. The Swiss famously passed a minaret ban recently - a pointless law, as minarets could already be prevented by planning officers and protests would ensure this - and one that obviously discriminates and is being challenged in the ECHR.
The parliament unanimously begged the population not to vote for it but were unsuccessful.
So the question is - did the Swiss vote for it because they were brainwashed and if so, by whom? Or are they misinformed? Or are they just racist?

In reply to EeeByGum:

One of the major lessons in recent times is Afghanistan. They have had to suffer the British and the Russians and the Taliban and the Americans across the last couple of centuries and others before that. No matter what has been imposed and no matter what the internal strife, they are still all Afghans and they retain that aspect of social cohesion over hundreds of years. Regardless of oppression, poverty and foreign impositions, they retain basic values and self-governing principles at basic local level.

We need to work with that, instead of working against it. As soon as senior NATO people start to understand what a Jurga really is and how it works (LOOK OUT! - pig flies past at Mach 0.84!) then Afghanistan could be on a better path.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

I would initially but then when you look at the UK coloured population ratio in general, then the UK prison one, perhaps SA is more just. But that's another thread, either way give me Europe in generally over China or any other communist dictatorships.

In reply to EeeByGum:
The older I get the less I can get worked up about democracy. It seems to mean that once every four or five years I get one 20 millionth of a chance to influence things. Big deal! Except in a reality I don't even have that as I've never lived in a marginal constituency.
Then after all that MPs and governments ignore the wishes of the people anyway. Opinion polls seem to suggest fairly convincingly, for example, that if the public had their way we would not be in Iraq, which may please those on the Left. However, the polls also suggest we would have the death penalty and much stricter immigration policies too, which may suit those on the Right.

In reply to EeeByGum:


I'm not sure that the West is that keen on real democracy, it is keen on using the image of democracy in it's political and economic struggle with other states but it is not really that keen on true democracy in which each person has an equal possibility of influencing the way the world works, provided with honest and objective information sources and the possibility of exercising such rights in his or her day to day life - in the work-place, for example.

I would be quite pleased if the West was really keen on democracy and, for example enabled people to belong to trade unions without being harassed, stopped providing arms and aid to dictatorships, or countries rules by theocratic cliques, gave crushed peoples help in obtaining their democratic rights - in Palestine for example... but all this is just dreaming

In reply to EeeByGum: How many wars have China started?

In reply to Shaun L:

LOTS.

Regards

D

In reply to Shaun L:

It's interesting to see these ideas of 'rule', social organisation, civil liberties and so on discussed in the context of ourselves, in the short-term.

Without wishing to hijack the thread, it's important to recognise that 'we', as a global species, live on a single finite planet. In the western democratic system (okay, the hegemonic model of representative democracy) we vote and act on the basis of what 'we' (individuals/constituencies/nation states) perceive to be in our interests in the short-term. It results in what is known as the 'Tragedy of the Commons' - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons . You see it happening all around us with respect to climate change, global fish stocks, tropical rainforest etc. These aren't just environmental issues - they are fundamental to the long-term stability of the biosphere which supports human life. Sadly, the entire natural world also depends on the same planet.

My point is: while all of us as individuals might like the 'freedom' to buy tuna, cheap electrical goods, go on foreign holidays etc etc we're actually acting counter to the long-term interests of the human race. Where/how we might like to live now might well not be in 'our' (in the wider sense) long-term interest. I'm not talking about some sort of flimsy group selection arguement either. We are in essence harming our own grandchildren. The whole premise of natural selection is that your behaviour should be geared towards reproducing and ensuring you genes prosper in future generations ('the selfish gene' etc). Yet at the moment we are passing genes on into an increasingly inhospitable future. To use a rather unpleasant analogy, we are all sh*tting in our children's pushchairs.

With a global perspective of long-term interests (perhaps some kind of global benign dictatorship) 'we', as a species, would be acting very differently. The myth of perpetual resource-based economic growth (based on finite resources) would be swiftly abandoned. Hence, consumerism/capitalism would be seen for what it is (unsustainable and hugely destructive). 'We' would strive for sustainability and happiness as indices of progress rather than GDP. Sadly, at least until peak oil really bites, this is just a dream. People seem to be too selfish and/or self-interested for any kind of realistic hope of a global society.

There's an interesting essay which explores these ideas here for anyone that's interested:

http://www.fdsd.org/2010/02/the-lure-of-benign-dictatorship/

To those that say democracy is better than the alternatives, I'd say that many of the alternatives haven't been properly tried. Those that have been tried and have failed did so for the same reason that democracy is so popular. Namely, because people are inherently selfish/greedy.

Ben

In reply to Ben Darvill:

It reads like an apology for the NWO. Its narrative that is pretty similar to fundamentalist christianity and other millenial death cults

Selfish/greedy/self interested. As well as altruistic, empathetic and cooperative is what got us here after several hundred millenia of evolution - do you imagine that all this will end with the last humans scwabling over a single rusty tin of tuna?

Regards

D

In reply to Dauphin:

No surprise you reference the green movement and benign dictatorship - you are Zac Goldsmith and I claim my free box of organic sprouted mung bean soup.

Regards

D

In reply to Dauphin:

Locally sourced mung beans I hope?

Oh, and I'm surprised that you think I'm a Tory!

Ben

In reply to Ben Darvill:

>Oh, and I'm surprised that you think I'm a Tory!


Doesn't matter whether its left or right - the green conclusions are typically the same - the earth is gone/going to shit and the only way to save it is to take control away from the plebs as there is no time to waste disabusing them of their false conciousness. They will thank us later.

Regards

D

In reply to Dauphin:


I think "ecofascist" is the term you are looking for.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

That is what they say, though it is worth remembering the two ladies in thier sixties who applied for a permit to protest in 2008 when the Olympics were happening in China, who were given the option by the government of either doing hard labour should they persue thier request, or dropping thier request to protest in one of the designated pretest areas, so they understandably dropped thier request, and the Teinmen Square massacre has become seen as a kind of folk memory in China by people who are too young to remember it, and the mothers of the people killed were prevented by the authorities from congregating in rememberence of thier dead children in 2009, which was the aniversary of the massacre.

Anecdotally, my dad was in China the week before last, and a presentation he gave was messed up a bit because the hotel he was giving his presentation in had been taken over at the last minute by the military, who'd decided that they wanted to have a conference in the same hotel in which he was due to give his presentation, and the hotel was surrounded by 1000 military personel, and the people who were thier for thier technical conference were ordered to leave, which they did do, it's a shame, because it was a really nice hotel apparently, with good facillities, but the conference was spoilt at the last minute by the military deciding they wanted to use it instead.

In short i'd much rather live in an imperfect democracy such as in the UK, where the press can be out spokenly critical of the government, and organisations like Liberty or No2ID can make a fuss about human rights and civil liberties here, when they would be likely to be put in jail in China.

Cheers
Tim

In reply to EeeByGum:


If democracy and human rights are seen as a work in progress, rather than an end point at which countries can relax and say 'done it', I guess western countries are trying to get other people to make progress, rather than criticise from a position of being superiour, and it's the human traits of empathy and compasion which make western countries mention democracy and human rights?

Cheers
Tim

In reply to Wiley Coyote: The older I get the less I can get worked up about democracy. It seems to mean that once every four or five years I get one 20 millionth of a chance to influence things. Big deal! Except in a reality I don't even have that as I've never lived in a marginal constituency.


But in the meantime you can write to your MP, form a lobby group, try and get your point across, and actually change things. The recent campaign against our over-strict libel laws is a case in point.

In reply to ice.solo:

Why don't you take your findings and present them to the Indian govt?

In reply to seankenny:

Voting is seen by some people as the minimum that people can do.


They're parts of democracy as well, in having a say in how people affect how we live, which voting is a part of.

Cheers
Tim

In reply to Timmd:

to re-iterate my point.
It isn't that China is particularly good it is that we blithely ignore the shortcomings of our own country and say "well we aren't as bad as they are, so that's ok"
To use an analogy we are like a like a wife who gets beaten by her husband but says that's ok because the husband of the wife next door uses a hammer.
When really what we should be saying is we don't want to be beaten up period.
The Chinese use the same rhetoric in defence of their actions as we do they just use a hammer.

In reply to EeeByGum:

you believe... but you don't know; neither I do.

In reply to Shaun L:

mmmm, china had the bloodiest civil war in history - between communists and nationalists wanting democracy.

they also fortified the korean communists with a stunning loss of life.

pinkos are just as war mongering as anyone else.

In reply to EeeByGum: I think you're right, we shouldn't dictate.
On the other hand, have you ever lived in a comunist country, where your main concern would be how to find some food? I hope you haven't.

Quiet a few people have had the opportunity, if you can call it like that, of witnessing the misery and hunger, the exasperation of living in a comunist country, that's why probabily they're longing for a change in those countries;
..thing is, true change comes only from within', it is futile to force it upon the unwilling.

..i think i lost the point..

get me coat

In reply to seankenny:

i gladly would.

india is the primary example of when democracy fails and is nothing more than rhetoric. nearly a century of it and the human rights, basic needs and living standards of the population has hardly changed.
corruption is extraordinary, vote buying is normal, internal security is spotty, education is minimal, infrastructure is failing, there are break away states and its a 2 party system.

as a case for democracy india is absurd. its the best example of when the uneducated masses shouldnt be asked how to govern - especially when they are so blatantly ignored.

tho, oddly they have several communist states with elected parties so thats interesting.

In reply to Mario Sciacca:


not really. yes you could.....but no one will. that sense of freedom was beaten out of the population a generation ago.

In reply to Ben Darvill: so what do we do then?

In reply to ice.solo:

>tho, oddly they have several communist states with elected parties so thats interesting.

Who do pretty well - west bengal is communist and I think is the one of the wealthiest states in the country.

How can you argue against the populations involvement in the process of determination because we are not yet at the point where realistically it makes any difference? Surely you're not arguing for the status quo having witnessed the chaos for yourself?

Regards

D

In reply to ice.solo:

It's been about half a century since partition - 1948, not sure when first elections were held? So still a nascent democracy, 50 ish years is hardly anything.

Regards

D

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Some people in the west do, thst's true, but some people don't ignore the short comings.


I do see what you mean, though my point is that it may or will always be a work in progress, and if countries which are more progressed with regards to human rights and democracy don't try and help to improve things in countries which have not made as much progress, it could be argued that they're not doing something which is thier duty, and something which the average citizen in China (or somewhere else) would want them to do.

The Chinese born artist Ai Weiwei(sp) who has been jailed in the past, and beaten up in China, has asked David Cameron to mention human rights in China when he visits there. I'm not sure if D Cameron should refuse to because things aren't perfect in the UK.

I suppose you could see it as countries being hypoctical in pointing out faults in other countries, and that being a negative thing, or you could see it as countries helping each other to make progress in pointing out where human rights or democracy could be helped, in a global sense we need to keep pointing out where each other is going wrong I think.

Cheers
Tim

In reply to Mario Sciacca:

I sometimes think if I was in a country where I didn't have many freedoms, i'd be gratefull to anybody who spoke out on my behalf, if it made any difference, i'm not sure i'd mind if thier own country wasn't perfect.

Cheers
Tim

In reply to Dauphin:


im not arguing either way.
in both china and india an uninformed public is ignored by a corrupt system.

In reply to ice.solo:


Chang Kai Shek wanted democracy?!!!

We clearly don't use the same definition of the word.

In reply to EeeByGum:

Quote: "There's nothing subjective about human rights. Every human needs them"

Well, nothing subjective apart from the rationale for their existence - they're a socially constructed set of priorities which you and I may agree with, but they don't exist beyond that.

In reply to ice.solo:

Some good points here, but also some factual errors. For a start, India is most definitely not a two party system. Sure, there are two almost-national parties, but they have to rule in coalition with a motley collection of regional and caste-based parties.

Whilst India is hugely undeveloped and lots of what you point out is true, to say living standards have hardly changed just isn't true. Dalits and other low castes have got the best deal they have in a long time, and a lot of that is due to their power in a democracy. There are a lot of them!

In the last election Congress won a surprise victory over the BJP. A surpise for the urban elites, however, as they underestimated how popular the Congress' work programmes would be amongst the rural poor.

One could make a good case that many of the problems of India are down to the ruling elite, rather than those at the bottom who are struggling to get by, and I'd blame lack of the rule of law, not paying taxes, etc, as opposed to democracy.

In reply to ice.solo: Erm they had a civil war. They joined in a war going on next to them.

Pinkos are just as war warmongering as anyone else?

Yet you haven't actually mentioned a war they started, putting aside civil war, which, just about every country I can think of has had at some point.

In reply to Timmd:
I quite agree with all you said there.

My beef is only really with those who feel that our freedoms are a given thing that don't need protecting.

In reply to Shaun L:

They attacked India in 1962.

In reply to Shaun L:

They kicked Tibets arse in 1950 and repeatedly since.

Regards

D

In reply to Postmanpat:

And declared a ceasefire one month later.

In reply to Dauphin:

From Wiki

Emerging with control over most of mainland China after the Chinese Civil War, the People's Liberation Army confronted the Dalai Lama's army at Qamdo in 1950 and negotiated the Seventeen Point Agreement with the newly crowned 14th Dalai Lama's government, affirming the People's Republic of China's sovereignty but granting the area autonomy. This agreement broke down[clarification needed] in 1959, as the Dalai Lama government fled to Dharamsala, India during the 1959 Tibetan uprising, with the Central People's Government quickly taking control after suppressing the revolt.

Hardly a war of aggression...

In reply to Shaun L:

It was a border dispute left over from the British Raj days, there are still several disputed areas along the frontier, including a long and bloody one between India and Pakistan over Kashmir which has been going on for decades... so it's hard to find particular fault with China on this issue. Their voting record at the UN has been pretty exemplary in terms of trying to avoid armed conflicts elsewhere in the world too.

In reply to Shaun L:

So what?Just thought I'd mention it. They also invaded Vietnam in 1979.
It's true they've not been notably aggressive externally . Too busy killing each other maybe.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Of course! <Slaps head>

That's why there's only 1,324,655,000 of them

In reply to EeeByGum:



The word 'we' is used for at least two totally different entities. First there is 'we the people', the ordinary people who say read this forum. As one of those people I have every right to express what kind of political system I would like to live in and I reckon a democratic system would probably be pretty good.

The second 'we' is the imperialist governments of the US and UK. I doubt either has much interest in real democracy particularly those towards the right which is why we get very little of it - one cross in a box every 5 years and choice between near identical parties all pandering to the corporate agenda.

Their interest in 'democracy' is using it as form of propaganda when they wish to attack a country that happens to be non democratic eg. Iraq. Of course if it is already a democratic country then they'll just find a different excuse even if they have to overthrow a democratically elected government when it suits them. There are plenty examples of where democracy was happily traded for dictatorship when it suited Western Imperial governments (Iran in the 50s, Chile) which only goes to highlight the hypocrisy of their claims.

In reply to seankenny:

your points are noted and well made.

tho, considering that no minority party could ever be part of the process without being in coalition with one of the only 2 parties that ever do have power is effectively a 2 party system is it not?
not saying that 2 party systems are rare or wrong - the US is such.

your point about the dalits is good. i conceded that.
yet still tens (hundreds?) of millions still live in squalor that is hard to see pseudo-representation fixing, given that india has a massive non-voting public and vote buying is the norm.

my point here is not that india is crap - but that democracy hasnt been all that successful.
as you point out, lack of rule of law (often also called institutionalized corruption), tax dodging and a ruling elite subvert the system - and thats my point.
add to that massive gender disparacy (sp) and a non-industrial ethic.
democracy doesnt work when, well, democracy isnt given the chance to work.

In reply to Shaun L:

an unusual argument, but i will take the bait:

does a country have to start wars to be warmongering? (ok i supposed semanticly they do, but...) arent civil wars and major backing of wars enough?

china has been hugely involved in instigating wars all over the region and has had dozens of conflicts along its borders.
korea was pretty major, as was the indo-china war that became vietnam. the indo-burma war significant, so too the backing of the junta with chinese troops.
they have made major incursions into russia, pakistan and mongolia and had an ongoing conflict with india. they have a nasty and violent dispute with bhutan.
along with stuff on their borders china has backed countless civil wars in africa.

again, my point is not to say one system is better than another - but to say not all systems work all the time. democracy doesnt slove all the worlds problems - and neither does communism.
both are as good at starting wars and killing their own people in civil wars as the other.

In reply to ice.solo: Thanks for your very gentlemanly comments - much appreciated.

You say India has a massive non-voting public. Not so sure about that..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7973477.stm
This from an Indian political scientist:
"In advanced democracies, as you come down the various tiers - from national to local elections - the turnout of voters goes down.

In India, it is exactly the opposite: the turnout in federal elections tends to be around 60%, in the state elections it is around 70% and when it comes to village council elections it is anything upwards of 80%."

I agree that India's squalor and poverty is terrible, and that perhaps a more autocratic system might have led to quicker, more successful development. But given that the huge divisions in the country - language, caste, region, language, religion, culture - an autocratic system would spend an awful lot of time and energy on repressing those divisions, whereas democracy (and a very federal system) acts as a pressure valve.

I would hope that an increasingly educated population would become better at holding their political elite to account.

India is certainly a strange place to harbour democracy, but I find that heartening and rather wonderful, rather than a sign that autocracy of some sort or the other is automatically more successful.

In reply to Shaun L:

Other sources say that the agreement broke down because the Chinese renaged on thier parts of the agreement, which is what led to the Dalai Lama fleeing Tibet. It's true that America gave some support to the uprising in 1959, though it's possible that the conditions in which Tibetans were having to live under Chinese rule led to thier desire to rise up in the first place.

Cheers
Tim

In reply to ice.solo: You may be interested in this:

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/rodrik46/English

"The relationship between a nation’s politics and its economic prospects is one of the most fundamental – and most studied – subjects in all of social science. Which is better for economic growth – a strong guiding hand that is free from the pressure of political competition, or a plurality of competing interests that fosters openness to new ideas and new political players?

East Asian examples (South Korea, Taiwan, China) seem to suggest the former. But how, then, can one explain the fact that almost all wealthy countries – except those that owe their riches to natural resources alone – are democratic? Should political openness precede, rather than follow, economic growth?"

Disclaimer: I saw a link in an article I was reading, I haven't actually read it myself yet tho.

In reply to EeeByGum: Talk to anyone who has lived under a repressive regime and you'll soon come to appreciate certain freedoms.

Whether democracy guarantees these freedoms is another matter and it's not impossible with a bit of gerrymandering and electoral shenanigans for dictatorial regimes to gain power in any country.

Given the changes in our laws and attitudes to freedoms over recent years in the name of security any repressive regime which got into power in the UK wouldn't need to pass many new laws...ripe for the plucking we are IMO.

In reply to seankenny:

I'm not sure you can lump South Korea in with China as examples of anything in particular. South Korea has been a functioning democracy for some time. And you also need to consider that for every successful economy such as China's with, as you put it, a strong guiding hand, there is a North Korea - a rigid dictatorship with a completely f*cked up economy which can't even feet its own people.

In reply to tony:

North Korea is a bit of a special case these days, wouldn't you say? It's not hard to find equivalents in the capitalist world.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Current capitalist equivalents to north Korea. I'm struggling to think of one. Enlighten us.

Regards

D

In reply to Dauphin:
You're going to wish you hadn't asked

In reply to tony: Tony, it's a quote from the article. I didn't write it!

In reply to Dauphin:

Haiti?

In reply to Bruce Hooker: The relationship between democracy, freedom, and capitalism, is more complex than may people think. I suggest anyone interested in topic read False Dawn: The Delusions of Modern Capitalism, by John Gray.

In reply to wilding:

Haiti is simply a failed State. Neither capitalist nor communist in any meaningful sense.

In reply to Postmanpat: Most failed states are rampantly capitalist. Somalia is a fine example.

In reply to seankenny:


No they are not. They are anarchies. The fact that money changes hands doesn't make them capitalist States.

Capitalism will only work in a State with rule of law the necessary institutional framework.

In reply to EeeByGum:

Democracy?! Aye right.

In the pie-chart of possibilities we are offered three cuts of the same thin slice.

It's a joke.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Anarchy, in the archaic sense, and in its true value, is the politic of self responsibility and government.

Don't believe the hype.

In reply to Ed Boyter:
Anarchy has numerous definitions which I can't be bothered to discuss.. For Somalia the term "failed States" seems apt.
To make the point,as you seem to be, that capitalism doesn't work in failed state is not really adding much.Because nothing much works in a failed state.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Really? One could argue that Russia hasn't much in the way of rule of law, and yet it looks pretty capitalist to me.

Capitalism operates under many different political systems. Look at the difference between Germany, the US and China. It might also be the case that it operates (in a way) in failed states.

In reply to seankenny:

There is a difference between "operates" and "works" . If you define is capitalism any system that uses money and is not State directed then may be "it" operates in failed states, but it doesn't work. Personally I wouldn't accept such an all encompassing definition.

Nor has worked terribly well in Russia for just the reason you allude to.Russia would probably best be defined as quasi capitalist.

My point is simply that capitalism embedded in a State with the rule of law and an institutional framework is the best recipe for increasing material wealth and maybe also for creating democracy.

In reply to EeeByGum: Democracy represents the choice by the people to select whose in charge. By going into places and forcing them to be democratic the west is basically going against it's own principles so yes, it is hypocritical. Its just sometimes a necessary evil. However we shouldn't, especially the USA, try to pretend that we are morally superior as we are not.

As Winston Churchill said - "Democracy is the worst form of Government. Except for all others that have been tried"

In reply to Postmanpat: Yes, obviously capitalism works best under those circumstances. That's obviously ignoring China's current economic situation as compared to America's.

Russia in some ways seems to be working quite well, at least in terms of rising living standards and so on.

But capitalism is, yes, a system that uses money and is not directed by the state and I think some failed states could most certainly be classed as very capitalist. Others - I'm thinking Zimbabwe - much less so.

In reply to seankenny:

Almost any definition of capitalism will define it as requiring legal rights to property ownership and the rights of people or groups acting as legal entities to buy and sell things.

Almost by definition a failed state lacks these legal rights and definitions or at least the ability to enforce them. "Ownership" at the point of gun (or sword) is not real ownership which is why pre modern Western societies are not regarded as capitalist. So by any generally agreed definition you are wrong.

In reply to EeeByGum:
What is the point of democracy without choice?

In reply to seankenny:
I find India a facinating place. It is democratic and also one of the worlds oldest democracies and is mentioned as such by Greek historian Diodorus, writing 2 centuries after Alexandria the Great. Of course (as with Greek democracy and indeed ours at one time) not everyone was included. slaves and "untouchables" had no voice and are only now gaining it. It should be remembered that the working man had constraints on his voting until at least the mid 19th century (In Stafford for instance one had to be a property owner or a freeman of the borough to vote in local elections and votes were openly bought) and women only got the vote much later.
Democracy is but one thread in the success of a country. More important are perhaps things like a)the state of law and to what extent it is adhered to by those who up hold it and the effectiveness of its impact
b) the freedoms allowed by such laws c) the climate and resources of the country d) if the country has been or recently been under the control of another.
India is fascinating because it has a huge amount going for it. It has massive resources, it is very innovative, it has a very capitalist outlook (to the best of my knowledge there is no social security in India, people make their own money or starve. I stand to be corrected on this) and has a pretty good infrastructure. Yet it is largely still rural and has massive poverty. Recently in Bangalore there was a big hoo haar about the inability to deal with the cities rubbish problems. An article in the Decan Herald highlighted that money ear marked for collection and recycling was being syphoned off in bribes and contractors hired to dispose of rubbish simply hadn't. The problem is that there is a lot of noise and sabre rattling but no body is called to book over the fiasco. The highway code is more as set of suggestions than a series of laws and chaos rules because that law is rarely enforced and not evenly.
If we are lucky in this country it is not because of democracy itself but because we have, so far, managed to balance the protection and control of the state with the laissez-faire policies of the Whig period, combined with a largely uncorrupt infrastructure.

In reply to nightmonkeyuk:


For the ruling class it's very stable. In more totalitarian systems people may rebel and overthrow the whole ruling class. Under representative democracy the ruling class is never overthrown. When the population is fed up a new set of faces replaces the last and the system continues on unchallenged and with only minor changes.

Not a fan of Ken Livingstone but he got this one right:

"If voting changed anything they'd abolish it."

In reply to stp:

What is this "ruling class" ?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I always thought capitalism was just things like buying six eggs for 50p each and selling them for £1, and then buying more eggs with your profits to make more money?

I've heard analysts on TV taking about unregulated capitalism before, with regard to fake medicines and things, and worker exploitation.

Cheers
Tim

In reply to Timmd:
Exactly; the term they use being "unregulated capitalism" rather than "capitalism"

In reply to Postmanpat:


Not necessarily true. For example, theft was relatively rare in Taliban-era Afghanistan because the legal system, whilst rudimentary, sort of existed. (Not saying it was just, or not crazy, but it seemed to be there.) Yet it was pretty much a failed state.

And in Russia, there may be legal rights, but the experience of the oligarchs over the last ten years shows these might not count for much.

In reply to seankenny:
>
Don't know what your saying in terms of whether it was a captalist state. I would suggest not because it's legal system was primitive and poorly enforced (is my impression).


Which is is why I term it "quasi capitalist". It has rule by law rather than of law and the laws are no properly implemented.

Actually China is the odd man out.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Sorry I forgot to quote your sentence:
Almost by definition a failed state lacks these legal rights and definitions or at least the ability to enforce them

Its legal system was primitive but quite well enforced. Businessmen actually rather liked the Taliban as they provided security and a degree of stability. Can capitalism operate in a failed state? Obviously not our advanced capitalism, but capitalism of a sort.

Whilst you might call Russia quasi-capitalist, plenty of other people seem to call it authoritarian but capitalist, ie. just another variant of capitalism, which seems to thrive under all sorts of political conditions. Remember that the American right and free-market economists were very keen on Pinochet-era Chile.

In reply to seankenny:


I'm not quite sure where all this is leading you.

In reply to Postmanpat: Yes, very much into a cul-de-sac. I was hoping you could tell me. I imagine you were hoping I'd say you were 100% right in whatever you said.

In reply to Postmanpat:

N Korea is clearly a failed state too... unless you are still locked into the idea that the objective of socialism is misery and dictatorship?

In reply to the question, as said Haiti, Somalia, Nigeria, all sorts of countries throughout the world that can be called "failed states" are mostly forms of capitalism, in that they are based on private ownership of the means of production. There are very few states these day that aren't essentially capitalist, but within the label "capitalist" can be grouped a range from democracies like Switzerland to fascist states like nazi Germany though places in total meltdown like Somalia.

In reply to Postmanpat:


You're struggling here! You weren't educated by jesuits by any chance,

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

He reminds me a bit of you actually, in saying that places which have been comunist and athoritarian weren't facist because capitalism is a key part of facism.

People have been executed and jailed and sent to camps for saying or publishing the wrong things when living under both kinds of regimes, which is the important bit I think.

I'm not out to be antagonistic though, it's just something which occured to me.

It's a Friday though, so peace to all humankind...

Cheers
Tim

In reply to EeeByGum:

It's a different thing to say that democracy is the right system by which to choose how your country is run than to say than to force China to follow what we say. He's saying that democracy is right and so China ought to be a democratic country.

Democracy also doesn't dictate a particular system of rule (socialist, capitalist, etc) it just gives a way for the individuals within that society to choose that system of rule.

Why so obsessed? Rights. It is right that you have the freedom to choose (along with everyone else in your country) how your life is governed. It is not right that others should get to choose how your life is governed (how your freedoms are curtailed) without you having any say.

Questions of whether it "works", as in results in a rich society and a high quality of life are entirely missing the point of democracy. The question of whether we actually have democracy is again, another question.

In reply to Timmd:


You flatter me!


Well this is because you see words as being insults or tools of abuse rather than just neutral things that have a specific meaning. "Capitalism" is a description of a certain kind of social and economic system, a very wide one too. The same is true for "communist", it is not necessarily pejorative and many very good, generous people have given their life for it. You have been brought up to see communism as universally bad, others have been brought up to see capitalism in the same way. Both are instances of brain washing.

It's true that communism has largely failed to produce what it promised, but it is just like many other Utopian systems that went wrong - Haiti is another, originally a state set up to provide a better life for free slaves rather than the nightmare it became. Capitalism has won the cold war, and now rules the planet totally but that doesn't prove that without the many revolutions of the 20th century the world would have been a better place than it is now.

At the risk of upsetting people this applies (perhaps) even for Stalin - without his brutal methods Hitler could well have won, and the Chinese revolution, which depended on Soviet aid at first, would have been lost too leaving Chang Kai Shek's fascists in power, not to mention leaving Tibet in a state of feudal oppression with a life expectancy of 40 years for all but the feudal lords and their monkish supporters. It's not hard to imagine a world run by a fascist axis from Europe to Japan.

All historical fiction now though.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I think you missunderstand what I mean. It was from the angle of many people having had bad lives (or lost them through oppression) under communism like they have under facism, rather than from putting values onto the words comunism and capitalism. I see comunism as being honourable in intention, and essentially unworkable because of human nature.


I think suggesting what would have happened had things in the past been different, can be coloured by one's world view, it's quite possible that life span and quality of life would have improved in Tibet anyway, there are other countries where lifespan has improved (and indeed decreased) in a very short time.

It's something we shall never know.

As it is, Tibetans who have grown up under Chinese rule and have left, and Tibetans who manage to get information out to the outside world, say that Tibetans are essentially second class citizens in Tibet under Chinese rule.

Cheers
Tim

In reply to Timmd:


That's the problem they are words that have meanings, communism is not fascism, they are different politico-economic systems... Whether they may sometimes have aspects in which they are similar is another problem. Hitler, Stalin, and Nehru all drank their mothers' milk (AFAIK) but this doesn't mean they are the same in most other ways.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

yawn....

In reply to EeeByGum:

I'd say very hypocritical .

In reply to Postmanpat:

You said somewhere or other wasn't "capitalism" but "unregulated capitalism", if that's not struggling in a lost argument and nitpicking than what is? It's like saying a car which is out of control is not a car but an uncontrolled car!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Yes, I'm sure you're right. I'd actually lost track of what me and the other guy were nitpicking about and why but I'm sure it was crucial at the time.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I was reading Eric Hobsbawm the other day and he's quite insistent that Nazi Germany wasn't a capitalist state, as most of the huge industries because state run (and directed towards war).

In reply to Timmd:
>

Read "An explorers adventures in Tibet" by Arnold Landor at the turn of the last century for a different view of Tibet from the current fuzzy warm and cuddly Western view that we have at the moment. I suspect Landor's view of Tibet is similar to China's and comes from being there rather than as a cosseted western tourist

In reply to pneame:

I'm not blind to how Tibet was, in it being a feudal country when the Dalia Lama was growing up and a young man in his early twenties (who made efforts to improve things according to some), more i'm not blind to how Tibet is now either, there are some awfull things which are happening in Tibet under Chinese rule.

The Buhtan Region was feudal like Tibet was and closed to the world, untill China invaded Tibet, after which it started to open up to the outside world and has reacently had it's first democratic elections.

If you can find the time, have a google for something like 'peer reviewed medical study in the torture of Tibetans under Chinese rule' or something like that, and there's the exiled Tibetan who went back to Tibet under cover*, and on film interviewed Tibetans talking about women having enforced staralisation, and nomands being made to relocate into settlements where they end up living in poverty and have to turn to crime to survive. There's quite a lot information out there about how life is in Tibet. *It's a Dispatches programe called 'Undercover In Tibet' which can be watched online.

The rioting in 2008, and the monks telling journalists (who were shown around by the Chinese to prove that all was well after the rioting) that they have no human rights, and Barac Obama being deeply concened about Tibetan culture are important too I think, or indicative that things aren't good for Tibetans.

However Tibet was when the PLA decided it should be a part of China again (because there have been times when Tibet ruled over China before it turned to Buddhism, i'm just saying incase you didn't know), it doesn't justify any human rights abuses which are happening now.

With mineral reserves in Tibet and the fact that important rivers origionate in Tibet (which supply China and India and other parts of Asia with water), it's possibly not only patriotism and a desire to free Tibet from feudalism which motivates China in wanting to keep Tibet as a part of China, and have a say over what happens there.

The Chinese government have a huge challenge in improving the lives of so many people, there's no doubting that, but i'm not sure that that makes it fair, what is happening to Tibetans in Tibet.

To anybody who'd say that negative things being said by Tibetans either exiled or annonamously, are only part of the story and is a biased viewpoint, China only has to give journalists more freedom to find out about all that is happening, and stop putting in jail Tibetans who smuggle pictures out of Tibet. On jounalists Without Borders is the story of a Tibetan who took pictures of a peacefull gathering being broken up by riot police, who got something like seven and half years, which was more than the person who organised the gathering, which could indicate they quite strongly want to curtail information from reaching the outside world.

In around 2008 China told the UN that it was inconvenient for a UN human rights inspector to go to Tibet, and in the end the visit never happened.

Cheers
Tim

In reply to Timmd:

...Reporters Without Borders

In reply to Timmd:
Absolutely - My unclear point was that history is a moving target. I don't at all like what is going on in Tibet at the moment, or the Chinese whitewashing of same. And old history is never an excuse for poor behavior to fellow humans. But it helps to know the old history as a way of understanding (not condoning!) current events and realizing that things are never black and white.

There is, however, a tendency for the west to go all romantic about things that perhaps shouldn't be romanticised. The classic modern example of this behavior is the Western powers record of propping up psychotic despots to stop the USSR (or other non-favored nation de jour) propping up some other form of psychotic despot. And those (obviously in the west!) who don't much like their government's policies going all lovey dovey about "the other side", much encouraged by the wannabe controlling government. It's a very dirty world.

Thanks for the pointer - added to my news links!

Cheers
Peter

In reply to seankenny:

Industry was still in private hands - Krupps etc weren't nationalised AFAIK - and there were even foreign companies who operated in the country taking advantage of the situation - Kodak, for example. Never seen "The Damned" by Visconti?

There are many articles and books on this subject, as usual, nazi propaganda, like it's modern counterparts, confuses issues by complaining about socialism as well as capitalism but under the demagogy - designed to attract workers as well as it's natural power base in the middle classes - they never actually did away with private ownership even during the war although the nazi party was present in companies and the owners had to follow orders if they wanted to continue making profits... or living

In reply to pneame:

For climbers another book gives an insight into the reality of Tibet under the Dalai Lama, or rather the feudal lord for whom he was the puppet, it's Heinrich Harrer's (of Eiger fame) book - Seven Years in Tibet. He describes the misery of ordinary people in the 1940s - I still remember his description of those he saw in the meat markets and I read the book at school 45 years ago. He was friend of the present Dalai Lama so cannot be said to have a bias against the Tibet of that day.

PS. Read the book, the film doesn't follow the book (or reality!) any more than most films, even if it's watchable for the views.

In reply to EeeByGum:

This is aside from your main point I know, but it's depressing how many people in Britain undervalue the system of government we have.

Yesterday Aung San Suu Kyi was released from house arrest after being locked up in one form or another for 15 of the last 21 years. The recent elections in Burma were a sham designed to lend legitimacy to an inept and repressive military regime. Newspapers yesterday reported truckloads of police across Rangoon armed with assault rifles and stationed at the main intersections. Some 2000 political prisoners remain in prison.

Today, many people in Britain will be remembering people who died fighting to prevent Britain becoming a fascist state in 1939-45.

Our system of government may not be perfect but at the very least our system means that most of us don't have to live in fear of being arbitrarily locked up, or worse, for political dissent.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: The point about Tibet is that they want self determination, it doesn´t matter how much supposedly better for them Chinese rule is, they don´t want it. Believe me Bruce, I have been there and witnessed the poor Tibetans hatred of the Chinese and love of the Dalai Lama. They want the Chinese out and the old regime back in.

In reply to Al Evans:


All of them? A return to the paradise lost of Shangri La!

Right on!

In reply to James B:

Hear! Hear!

In fact very few countries benefit from such a living democracy a the British Parliamentary system, even in Europe. In France it is a democracy right enough but the parliament has very limited powers compared to the executive, ie. the President. the debates are generally both boring and theatrical... they are televised though for anyone who wants to see them.