I view this as another moment in the historical dialectic involving traditionalism and liberalism, and the process of decolonization.
The Chinese leadership appears to understand this dynamic and is jumping in to shape in with Chinese characteristics in China. I support the approach of putting a leash on capitalism, which as the author notes, if left to its own dynamic becomes rapacious and there is no law way to address this from within capitalism as an economic system.
This means that insofar as capitalism is a socio-economic systems, an outside influence must intervene, and that is the government. And this is not unique to China. It is a paradox of (bourgeois) liberalism and one that not only Marx addressed but also sociologists in the West, along with institutional economists such as Thorstein Veblen. It is also a basis of the politico-economic theory of neoliberalism.
While the challenges this presents in the West are different than they are in China, they are real and also need to be addressed in Western countries. Different countries and regions have different cultures and histories and so there cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach.
For example, I participated in the countercultural revolution and antiwar movement in the US in the Sixties and Seventies and then sadly watched it become co-opted and commercialized, with the result that much of the worst survived and much of the best did not. While many factors were involved, commercialization was a major one and it began almost from the beginning with music, a key shaper of culture. The economic system of a society affects its culture profoundly. (Marx was right about that.)
Now China is presented with a similar but different set of challengers and seems to be rising to the occasion before things get out of hand. This harnessing "market forces" is clearly going to have economic effects, by someone has to do it to moderate the shift from traditionalism to liberalism.
There are two schools of thought on this transition. Some think that liberalism will eventually replace traditionalism, the quicker the better. Others think that the two forces will be integrated, likely differently in different cultures. I view the latter as most likely, and trying to force the former will lead to unnecessary conflict.
The Scholar's Stage
Xi Jinping’s War on Spontaneous Order
Tanner Greer
See also
Turcopolier
“Inside every —— there is an American trying to get out …” Not!
Col. W. Patrick Lang, US Army (ret.)
Related
How AP, Reuters And SCMP Propagandize Their Readers Against China
18 comments:
MMA fighter Xu's experience exposes hy pocrisy and tyranny of Chinese Government and Communist party
https://aproundtable.org/blog/xu-xiaodong-and-chinas-social-credit-control/
American Policy Roundtable? Really?
Facts are facts, Tom. There are umpteen independent sources of corroboration. Xi Jinping's "war" is on truth -- if he resembles anyone, it is Mike Pompeo. This kind of truth suppression is just par for the course for the CCP and the Chinese government -- it is all of a piece with intimidating the IMF into changing the country's business friendliness rating, or attacking anybody who raises the specter of the Chinese government's immense abuses in Xinjiang and Tibet. If you have ever worked in a Chinese or Vietnamese government institution, then you know that this is viewed as just normal behaviour, and that there is no belief on the part of authorities that any country does anything different (indeed, the Communists are always bemused when unwelcome details of a Western leader's misdeeds are made public -- how could that happen???). Data are just proclaimed.
And, of course, nobody in the West actually gives a damn about the IMF rating, but these kinds of responses are part of Chinese internal propaganda -- imagine if you can point to outside proof of the evidence of your success! Ever notice how many Chinese-government funded films focus on the regaining of perceived "honour" in the face of Western slights? Really, it is a pathological and much repeated theme -- and just the kind of Abacha-type appeal to so-called "domestic cultural values" that we in the West are just too obtuse and culturally distant to understand. What a load of manure!!!!
Not that Western countries don't try to boost their reps too -- think of the millions that Canada poured into the World Development Report methodology, which always came up with Canada on top while Jean Chrétien was PM. But the extent to which the Chinese Government is willing to go is mind-boggling -- can one suppose that anyone would give a damn if a US fighter were to similarly trounce notable pugilists? It would be front-page news, and all the tabloids would be joking about it. But the stakes are doubly high for China -- the Gong Fu racket hauls in the money (note that this is not a criticism of Gong Fu, itself). Films, Netflix show, martial arts tourism etc. are great money makers. But at the end of the day it is even more the frightening notion that any "western" trend could be superior to the home-grown, which frightens the CCP. It may be true that Xu's martial arts achievement is irrelevant, because he is a prize fighter facing non-prize fighters. And that is what makes the Chinese Government's response so ludicrous, and therefore so terrifying.
Social credit is social control, marginalisation and state abuse not paralleled in the US since 1865 (or maybe McCarthyism).
@ Marian
Choosing obviously biased sources conveys the impression that the person doing so is either clueless about citation, pushing an agenda, or operating on the basis of confirmation bias.
I check sources and this is one thing I look for. People send me stuff asking my opinion and I respond by showing how the source is not objective. It usually doesn't take much digging and my impression is that such people should have saved me time and effort by filtering it themselves. The ones I make space for are the digitally illiterate or otherwise challenged intellectually.
Does this mean that the source is wrong. Not necessarily, but it creates the suspicion that even if not, the statement of the case is skewed toward an agenda. If I cannot find corroboration from objective sources, I disregard it as relevant.
This is how I was trained both academically and by an intel professional.
Social credit is social control, marginalisation and state abuse not paralleled in the US since 1865 (or maybe McCarthyism).
You seem to have missed that the US is on the brink of civil war because half the country is convinced that this is the case here, e.g., "the Great Reset," mask and vaccine mandates, stolen election, Russiagate, etc. When the GOP is in power, its regard as a fascist takeover by those not in power, and vice versa when the Dems are in power.
Tom: no, I have not missed your last point. The very fact that there is such opposition and conflict presents substantial hope -- this is a very different reality from the monomaniacal anti-Communism of the McArthy era, I think.
Today's dangers are immense, perhaps greater than any other, but I do not think that the US -- despite the electronic monitoring, violence, narrative control, neo-Lysenkoism etc. -- is anywhere yet at the stage (domestically, I mean) where individual liberties are so constrained that most people cannot express themselves publicly (although that may be the case for certain black, Muslim and Indigenous minorities).
(Short segue, here, to dispel any notion that what I am writing is the narrow-minded Canadian American-bashing. We have our own sins (and less case than almost any to be self-righteous), and I am just trying to write fairly.)
I think the American (and Canadian and European) public needs nuanced discussion and reporting. There is something glorious about US and UK progressives' repudiation of colonial / exceptionalist justifications, and defence of their opponents -- I can see why some go that way. But I think the greater trap lies in providing a simple, un-nuanced counterweight to unfounded imperialist narratives. That does as much disservice to the American public as the initial propaganda spewed by officialdom. Only a fool would deny many of the strengths of the Chinese régime -- which Varoufakis and others have pointed out well. But let us not hide the immense negatives either. I think much of the tension and violence in the US is essentially the result of 65 years of misinformation -- let us support Assange in disseminating the truth to the best of our ability, instead of playing propaganda ping-pong.
I am not as optimistic, Marian.. I see the US falling deeper and deeper into the pit of fascism as a counter to the imperialism of TPTB that has taken to colonizing even the domestic population, with contemporary "capitalism" (rentierism really) devouring its young.
America is over, having fallen from its pedestal based on soft power. It began happening almost immediately post-WWII, e.g., formation of the CIA as an operational force in addition to an intel agency, and now the US is entering the endgame. Europe, UK and OZ are already over. Basket cases. America is running on fumes.
The stupid, the craven, and the crazy have won. It will take something of a miracle to turn this around. The whole system is rotten to the core and needs a complete overhaul. (Both parties are involved; this is bipartisan.) The huge propaganda machine stands in the way of that.
The difference between the CCP government and the American government is largely that of a one-party versus a two party government with factions vying for power — in one party in China and in two parties in the US. Beyond that the difference is small and mostly cultural.
I am optimistic in the long run through. Humanity will escape this extinction path, I believe, but before that happens there is likely to be culling on massive scale. The world is already experiencing this with the current pandemic and the endless war. The vice of climate change is also closing very perceptibly.
Meanwhile, just about everyone is staring into their phones.
I removed a duplicate comment above.
The hypocrisy of the Canadian regime is expressed by unmarked graves.
Nothing buried here, eh?
The "vice" of climate change should be "vise." But "vice" also works to characterize the cause largely as greed.
The usual metaphor is:
Everyone is staring into their phones as they walk over a precipice. The impact of climate change is felt later.
Canadian hypocrisy aside, this is rather good on US narratives:
http://johnemcintyre.blogspot.com/2021/07/schooled-in-dishonesty-about-nations.html#comment-form
A Chinese history book on Mao should contain a generous amount of white-washing (no pun intended). Every culture does this.
When we took history in high school, the Iroquois were depicted as sadists.
RIP Father Brébeuf.
Do politically correct history teachers recount his torture in history class today?
@ Marian
Yes, good post. But I wonder how true the following is:
So it's not surprising that those whose scanty schooling in history amounted to patriotic mythology resist any effort to teach an honest account of our past.
Scanty schooling or deliberate misrepresentation justified as a noble lie? John McIntyre admits this about Mike Pompeo, but I would venture a guess that it is much more widespread, especially as US demographics shift.
As the first commenter points out, his classmates in American history class, where this was actually taught correctly, seem to have been sleep then given their stance now.
Tom: As far as I was able to detect from a spyglass in Morrisburg looking south across the St. Lawrence, I think that it is only a narrow wedge of people (in positions of power and in the media on either side) in the US who might have been "sleeping". Many surveys of US attitudes put the majority of the population much closer together in many areas than political results might suggest.
#MintTheCoin: Economist Explains Problem With Just Minting $1 Trillion Coin to Pay the Government’s Bills
True to a degree but... The US used to be chiefly a centrist country until recently, although the divisiveness has been building for decades. There is still a lot of agreement, ironically over policy that neither party supports when in power, so Americans continue to hold a low opinion of the government.
But the so-called fringe on the left and right, were actually fringe until recently. Now there are basic matters over which there are intense disagreement and these positions are held fairly large numbers on left and right. I would estimate at minimum 20% on each side.
For example, decades ago, when I was young, I recall that the right-wing John Birch society was truly a fringe group. Now the cohort holding essentially the same views is the dominant factor in the GOP.
On the left, there was no liberal-progressive divide, since the liberals that dominated the party where much further to the left. Now there are two warring factions in the party.
That meant that previously it was possible to govern from the center and find compromise after some posturing. That era is now over and the environment is becoming increasingly hostile to boot.
I don't think that there will be conflict as long as time remain relatively good, but a deep recession could change that.
And there is always the possibility the elites of all factions decide that it's time for a war to unify the country behind the flag.
Regardless of what happens at the surface level, the actual agenda is elite factions agree about funneling the money up and competing over how to divvy it up.
The way it works is to dupe the rubes into acting against their economic interest by distracting them with other issues about which they feel strongly. This is now dominating the media and public discourse by appealing to the worst in people.
Oops. In my haste I posted the wrong quote in the above comment.
Here is the correct reference.
Many surveys of US attitudes put the majority of the population much closer together in many areas than political results might suggest.
Post a Comment