In the excellent TEDx talk below Eric X Li, describes how the Chinese political
system is a meritocracy where it can take people up to 30 years or more of hard
work to get to the top of the party. Only 5% of the top politicians come from
the higher classes, and all the rest have come from the lower classes. He
describes how at a local level people get a real say in how society is run and
how their services are provided, and so on the whole most Chinese people are
very happy with how their system.
He compares the Chinese system with the American one where he says that getting to the top is more about on how much money you have rather than any true meritocracy. He also says how there is a lot of corruption in the American system because of the huge amounts of money involved. And he says how many Americans don’t feel they have a real democracy at all, and that many others feel that they have no say in how their society is run and so have largely given up voting.
He says there is also corruption in the Chinese system but the leadership of the party are working hard to eradicate it because they know the serious damage it can do to a society.
EricX Li says that most Chinese think their system is better and fairer than ours, but it’s uniquely Chinese and can’t be exported. He contrasts this to our capitalist system where we arrogantly believe it can be transported all around the world whether other countries, or their societies, want it or not. Many don’t.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0YjL9rZyR0
8 comments:
I have listened to this talk before. Mr. Li is correct when he criticizes representative democracies. They have shown themselves to be corrupt, and are a sham in terms of power sharing. Yet he seems to defend authoritarianism.
In a direct democracy there are no political parties. If the CCP were to stay true to their communist ideals, their ultimate goal would be a form of direct democracy. Faced with economic stagnation they abandoned an approach that would have failed for them as it did for other socialist regimes. They embraced state capitalism.
They are to be commended for managing their economy competently and recognizing the danger of corruption. They are to be commended for their emphasis on merit, for investing in their infrastructure, and in educating their people.
But I don't agree that an authoritarian meritocracy is necessarily the best approach, if that is the term used to describe the Chinese system. The Technocracy movement of the 1930s in North America advocated a similar approach i.e. rule by scientists, engineers and technicians. These people, who still exist today according to Patrick M. Wood, may be well-meaning and sincere in their intentions, but they advocate a system that would be considered authoritarian by some.
Yes, I realised as I was writing it, that their system was no different to say, how the CEO of Nestlé had worked his way up from being a cleaner, but that didn't give cleaners a bigger say in how their company was run.
But our system is rubbish, too. We don't have a democracy, but 'Democracy' has been the some of the most effective propaganda our aristocracy have ever had. They feared democracy so much, but it turned out to be one the best things to have ever happened to them. Although, we don't have a democracy.
What I like about the Chinese system is that it gives the impression of corporatism. The coming days and weeks will show whether they are prepared to give 'investors' the required cold bath or whether the Chinese system is just another shield for creditor interests.
"and in educating their people"
I dont know about over there Bob, but over here, our system is absolutely FLOODED with Asians... its SOOOO BADDD that I would assume they dont even have any schools over there AT ALL...
personally, I'd say that American arrogance is the biggest story here
2nd biggest story, glossed over?
a majority of other chinese authors say corruption is the pink elephant in the room
(and that China won't get over the top without tackling corruption, which is supposedly the #1 priority of the latest Party Chief)
My personal hunch is that human nature is not that different anywhere on the globe. The temptation to pursue expedient paths (corruption) is endemic ... it just takes different forms in different places.
I'd put the differences in another way. The USA has been among the most OPEN of the large economies, for ~200 years. All our statistical sciences say that that APPEARS to be the path with the least net risk ... but statistics doesn't prove anything short term.
Any ethnicity-oriented nation-state simply can't be as OPEN as a melting pot. So my bigger worry is that we here in the USA are back to forming an enduring ethnicity called RICH.
Matt,
Foreign exchange students pay a premium in tuition.
Foreign-exchange students should just go to Germany, where tuition is free for all.
My bad, I meant international students.
Post a Comment