China and democracy

Ok, this is somehow bugging me... just until a few minutes ago, there has been a thread on /b/ in which this issue was kinda discussed (you know /b/...).
The whole argument was about which future super-power the /b/tards would prefer, China or the United States, and somehow, somebody said that if China was democratic, it would be best or something.

So, can China really be democratic? Even in our lifetime, could something like this happen?

If you look at China's history, you'd clearly say no. China has been a "modern" state since 960. With the downfall of the Tang-Dynasty, they got rid of the feudal system and established a bureaucracy, where everybody, given that he got proper education and passed the tests, could be a state official (although you'd have to be wealthy enough to afford such education, which limits it, but hey, even in modern states of today, things are similar). Also, one Chinese state official was responsible for a lot of people, at some times the number was as high as 200.000. Imagine that today, one little bureaucrat responsible for the needs of so many people.
Also, just until 300 years ago I'd say, China was technologically superior to the western nations. China was one of the first cultures to develop a fully functional writing system which has endured proven its practicability by being used until today. Paper (and by that I mean widely useable and not expensive like papyrus) as well as block printing are Chinese inventions. They were well aware of their superiority, which lead them to not really actively colonize other nations (which a nation with over 100 million inhabitants could easily achieve, I'd say), but instead wait for them to be interested in China and voluntarily pay tribute to them, which a lot of states in South East Asia did for example. Although this ultimately gave birth to arrogance and their downfall by not aknowledging European states, Chinese superiority was quite obvious at the time.

On the other hand, and I know that I'll generalize a lot right now, but hey, I'm not trying to describe individuals, but the Chinese people, so bear with it, there's has practically never been any kind of any evidence for a democratic movement or even human rights in China, or even an actual revolution.
The state went so far as to introduce collevtive punishment for the whole family when one member comitted a crime.
Also, the Chinese were ruled by foreign powers for a long time.
From 1260-1368 it was the Mongols under the descendants of Genghis Khan, from 1644-1911, they were ruled by the Manchurian Qing Dynasty. You may not see where I'm getting at with this, but what I wanted to point out, that the Chinese aren't patriotic in any kind. They did not resist to their foreign masters, just because they were strangers, only when economic circumstances went bad. So, if the Chinese aren't really interested in who is actually ruling them, can this really be a good foundation for democracy? I don't think so.
Also, as I was pointing out before, the Chinese have never had any kind of philosophical movement like the Enlightenment in the west which gave birth to human rights. Instead, the dominant philosophy in China is confucianism, which is basically about obeying. Honor the emperor, honor your parents, and so on. This of course forbids any critisicm of the government, and bad-mouthing the emperor has been punishable by death, a practice which was  also continued after the communists took over.

So, by making a long story short: China and democracy, a possibility or never going to happen?

Not really, the execute anyone who does not believe the emperor is a god law pretty much rules out ancient China being a democracy.

China is beginning to realise how inferior socialism is and is adopting capitalism, though with the express purpose of extracting money from the west with masses of cheap low quality goods and not looking like a pile of shite compared to it's westernised neighbours. Though with capitalism comes the need for education and with an educated middle class comes people who are of worth to the state and who question what they have been indoctrinated to believe. You cannot eliminate tyranny without letting the proletariat become bourgeoisie. Tyrants like to keep proletariats proletariat, often by demonising education and intelligence and promoting ignorance.

Confucius was one of the great Chinese philosophers ranking with Plato in logic, so was Tao. The trouble is China had no Galileos or protestants. Catholics love to claim that the enlightenment triggerred science, indeed Italy did lay some of the foundations for science, but no more than China would or had done. It was in protestant Germany and England that people decided to say "Nullius in Verba", even if it was just to smite catholicism and gain support for protestantism. In fact the idea of smiting tyranny and supporting other rulers (even if they are only slightly less despotic) has been one of the major forces for liberty which cannot arise by the idea alone.

With the rise of a middle class in China this set of events will undoubtedly take place. China is still an open and heavily cultured and bureaucratic oligarchic tyranny though.

>>2

Are you hoping maybe that if you keep repeating China and Socialism in the same sentence that it'll some out be true? China isn't a true socialism, just like Russia and Italy weren't true communism. This is like saying Nazi Germany was a true democracy. Get your head out of your ass.

>>3
Of course China isn't a "true" socialism, socialism doesn't work! Maybe you should take the log out of your own eye before pointing out the speck in someone elses.

Wow, probably you all need some truth force-fed right now:

Of course there is no socialist country, as in "duh', our teacher in high school said it doesn't work", but there aren't any true democratic states either: Accept it, "democracy" or "socialism" are just a set of ideological phrases to legitimate leadership. Want proof? First of all, democracy doesn't work because men are not equal. True, my vote does count as much as any other vote. But that's about it. And it won't change anything anyway. Western societies are divided in social classes . Try to run for president. You can't. Why not? Because only the rich can afford it nowadays.

The only advantage democracy has going for it would be human rights.

>>5
Haha you fucking idiot ahahahahaaa.

Of course there is no such thing as a "true" anything, that's why socialism doesn't work, because it expects despots to be benevolent. Democracy is simply a way of removing the despot, of course it doesn't completely eliminate crime, it's just better at it than socialism because it prevents tyranny rather than bolster it with lies.

Socialists are always on about how we are all controlled by oil coorporations, well a few criminals who control a business are better than a few criminals who control the military by a huge margin and that's assuming the criminals who control the business can evade the police, anyone who controls the military owns the police.

>>6
Oh yeah, I totally forgot that the President of the United States was in charge of the military. It's all about corporate-interests nowadays. The war in Iraq wasn't about WMDs, accept that.

Also, I agree with you on the socialism part, men are evil, that's the main reason it doesn't work. But liberal democracy like the US aren't the answer. We need a better redeployment of capital in society, so everyone can possibly have access to everything. I think it's a shame if a system, which holds the resources to possibly do that, denies a smart poor person access to top-notch universities just because he couldn't pay for them.

>>7

truth got told. and cut out all the "fucking idiots". those are ad hominems.

>>7
Actually universities head hunt students on merit, a exceptional student will expect to get several letters from leading universities as they regularly pilfer through the top 1% exam results. If they had their way very few people would ever get into university, it's just so many people nowadays are desperate for titles they don't deserve they are willing to sacrifice a large portion of their earnings for education they don't need. Most likely the people you are referring to are FUCKING IDIOTS

>>7
Actually universities head hunt students on merit, a exceptional student will expect to get several letters from leading universities as they regularly pilfer through the top 1% exam results. If they had their way very few people would ever get into university, it's just so many people nowadays are desperate for titles they don't deserve they are willing to sacrifice a large portion of their earnings for education they don't need. Most likely the people you are referring to are FUCKING IDIOTS who are whining and bitching because they want to earn something without putting any effort into it.

The president isn't in charge of the military. If he orderred them to take the guns away from the christian liberty lovers in our southern states they wouldn't do it. Not that a democratically elected president would even try anyway.

Oh and I'm not an evil capitalist pig either, I run a small competitive firm which processes aluminium and I spend most of my time getting involved with the office and manual work myself otherwise I would have to decrease my employee's salaries. It's funny how acerage blue collar working people who's lively hood comes from actually doing something for the economy feel threatenned by socialism. Have you ever wonderred why? Or do you just assume we are all evil capitalist peeg ignorant redneck trailer trash?

>>10
Ok, wait, let's say you've always been a kid which above average grades. Not the new Einstein, but you actually are intelligent. Your dream is to become a doctor. But your father works at the local Walmart and your mother is unemployed. You live in a trailer park. You'd really have what it takes to be a good doctor. Except the cash. Universities do head-hunting. But only for really really smart people. There are still a lot of kids who aren't affected by this.

And maybe it's just me, but despite the downfall of large socialist empires, but socialism is still a "ghost" in political discussions. Why is that? Probably because A LOT of people are discontent with the conditions they have to work under or that they see that a small amout of people are gaining while they are just being robbed off. I am not talking about medium-sized companies. I am thinking of Halliburton's bosses and the like.

China is Hitler

>>12
Truth was told.

>>13
oh shi- godwin's law
D:

thread over 8(

>>11
Ok, point granted, people who are screwed over by fate. Who really are capable, but were brought up with drunk parents in a school where kids bully the ones who spend time studying and the teachers don't really care about anything other than their paycheck.

It isn't fair and clearly the government has some responsiblity to step in and give thse people a leg up, but when that time comes when this person say applies for a government grant to study human biology so that the person can prove to a university he is capable of becomming a physician. Let's say this country is particularly poor and cannot teach many students to college level. How can you be sure that the person is intelligent and determinned? How can you know whether the privately taught student vying for the same position is less intelligent than the poor student and simply had a better education?

In terms of utility it is very difficult to determine what people need from what they want, socialism and meritocracy work hand in hand in places like the military where people who are capable are obvious from those who are incapable, but in situations like this other ideas are needed. The naturally occurring idea of you either merit spectacularly or your rich daddy pays for your scholarship in this situation is better than trying to pay for everyone who wants to get into this sole college, or some famous college or whatever congruent situation you can think of whereby not everyone can gain a service.

Socialism < capitalism with a slight lean to meritocracy < hypothetical better idea someone can come up with

There is not such thing as 100% meritocracy, some people's parents die and leave them with some asshole uncle and other's are charismatic millionaires and raise them to be well rounded human beings. Meritocracy and socialism are more like objectives than practical solutions. We could just grab everyone put them in youth camps, indoctrinate and educate them to be super citizens and rank their merits scientifically, but that would involve autocracy, unless by pure chance such a system was voted in democratically.

Comparing China's socialism to how socialism would work in American is sheer idiocy.

>>15 unless by pure chance such a system was voted in democratically.

Oh shi-second godwinism!
Two Hitler refs in less than 20 posts, this is gonna be a gold mine when it gets to 100!

>>17
Chile elected a socialist government. The US didn't like it, so they installed Pinochet, improving on their winning streak of installing murderous dictators in other people's countries.

>>16
truth

>>17
Because we all know democracy is evil and a failure and inevitably leads to dictatorship, never mind the fact that the US has remained a democracy with the freedom of speech and right to vote through some very troubled and hypocritical times, which is why we need to force everyone to accept a socialist dictatorship.

China is a communist Country. Period. The elites who rule the so-called "People's Republic" are not interested in loosing their power in anyway. Democracy is a threat to their power. They will not let anything in that could lead to a change in China. The most obvious example is the recent “Google censoring for China” Fiasco!
However unlike other dictatorships they have learned from the past. They know that a happy, pacified population will less likely to rise up and challenge them. That is why the government has let it’s people embrace Capitalism. By fulfilling every materialistic need of the population, the government is looked on favorably if not positiveatly by the people.

Oh, does this ever lead to the FUCKING STUPID conclusion by those on the right that trade with China will lead with democracy in China. That has been going on for a couple of Decades now and the only thing that has happened is that HUGE ASS GREEDY-AS-FUCK Corporations have found that outsourcing labor to China (No labor laws, no unions, ect.) puts more money into their pockets. This has in no way gone unnoticed by the communist government. By outsourcing the American middle class (aka THE TAX BASE) is being destroyed. And the recently non-existent Chinese middle class is growing, making them more happy with the communist government. Strengthen the communist government is what Capitalism is doing in China. Not leading people to freedom and democracy.

Our middle class is being out-sourced, along with the benefits of having a large middle class.

China is a huge mess. They have crazy cencership laws, dont let their citezens freely play MMOs, and throw journalists into jail for printing the truth.

>>23
China has crazy censorship laws and whatever but they are not a huge mess.

On a related note, are the things that the Chinese police arrest for like arresting the journalist actually written down as illegal under Chinese law?

>>24
Laws concerning journalism (and most Chinese laws in general) are very vague and thus open for exploitation from government officials.

Democracy, if implemented in China, would also be very hard to run. China has a massive population with many inhabitants living secluded rural areas, which make campaigning much harder. Such a large population would result in many political parties vying for power, and sooner or later some voices will be unheard and form separatist movements.

Given that China's greatest goals for the last 5,000 years or so was for the unification of China, any cause which leads to separation would be highly unpopular. The core belief among its people is that a united China is strong, and since the Communists have more or less maintained that belief, by taking Tibet and asserting its claim over Taiwan, democracy won't be showing up in China any time soon.

American intervention involving the paradropping of weapons to Tibetian monks and the sale of arms to Taiwan hasn't helped the case for Democracy in China at all; if anything it's viewed as an outside attempt to separate the nation and thus wins very little support from the people.

>>25
The next step would be to organise democratic states with a central military and life term chairman. Democracy doesn't have to involve voting, after spending 50 years in communism and millenia of philosophising the Chinese have some experience at discplining and running a bureaucracy. It should be a small step to make those in a bureaucracy accountable to their inefficiency to whom their inefficiency affects. Communism is supposed to be about reducing corruption in those making the decisions.