Excellent article. Penetrating analysis + powerful delivery. Way to go!
Let the China Model keep it's momentum.
"...It is unprecedented that the rise of a nation of China’s size at such speed is taking place largely in peace. Let’s allow it to continue. If it means that the chair in Oslo will remain empty for decades and generations, so be it. The alternative is far worse. "
====================================
The New York Times
December 6, 2010
A Color Revolution in China? Keep It Red
By ERIC LI
The empty chair at the Nobel Peace Prize award ceremony in Oslo on Dec. 10 will no doubt be a cause for Western politicians and commentators to again condemn China’s authoritarian regime.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee that awarded the Peace Prize to the jailed dissident Liu Xioabo represents those in the West who believe a color revolution such as those that took place in Eastern Europe would lead China down the path of Western-style liberal democracy.
In this, they are utterly ignorant of China’s history and the nature of modern China. The revolution they seek, if it happened, would bring anything but liberty and responsibility. The revolution that is taking place they miss completely.
Given the opacity of its political system and penchant for behind-the-scenes decision-making, subtle but important signals in Beijing often get lost in transmission. Such appears to be the case with the plenary session of the ruling Chinese Communist Party held in October. Predictably, the West focused its attention on the promotion of Mr. Xi Jinping, the heir designate, as the most notable accomplishment of the meeting. An even more consequential political development was completely overlooked: The final communiqué.
On the surface, the communiqué seemed to be full of official clichés and a return to a strident claim of “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” But rather than an empty slogan, the phrase embodies a consistent developmental and political strategy that seeks to strike a difficult balance — achieving high growth rates through a market economy while relying on one-party political institutions to ensure social justice and peace. This strategy is the anchor of China’s relatively peaceful emergence into the global order.
Skeptics may justifiably question whether the strategy is achieving its objectives, pointing out rising inequality, corruption, social unrest and international conflicts. But they forget to ask, “What if?” For example, “What if a color revolution does sweep across China and overthrows its one-party regime?”
What happens after the euphoria is over? Will a post-Communist China deliver greater liberty and prosperity to the Chinese people? Will it be a less nationalist and more responsible power?
For all its shortcomings, the current one-party state in China is a status-quo power in two important respects. First, it is the initiator and protector of China’s enormously successful free-market development model. One of history’s greatest ironies is that in today’s world, the most pro-market party is the Communist Party in China. True, China’s economic success ensures the party’s political survival, but this has also ensured social peace in addition to improving the livelihoods, individual liberty and personal dignity of hundreds of millions of ordinary Chinese.
Second, in spite of the recent perceptions of an assertive China, the Communist Party is not seeking global hegemony or even regional domination. Its foreign policy is based on pragmatism and realistic national interests, not grandiose projects of ideological self-glorification. The reason is quite simple: Given China’s economic interdependence with the rest of the world, and its dependence on economic performance as a source of legitimacy, the Party has all the incentives in the world to maintain a pragmatic foreign policy. China is perhaps the greatest beneficiary of the status quo, so why change it?
Of course, skeptics may counter by pointing to China’s rising nationalism as evidence that Beijing will be forced to challenge the Western-made status quo. But this is confusing nationalist barking with aggressive biting. For all its nationalist rhetoric (there is plenty of it in China’s cyberspace), actual Chinese government behavior on foreign policy has been by and large moderate and restrained. Should a color revolution overthrow the Communist Party, who can guarantee the continuation of such a course, especially if extreme nationalists — with democratic credentials — gain power in a post-Communist regime?
Only by staying the course of “socialism with Chinese characteristics” can China’s development lead to ever enhanced liberty and prosperity for the Chinese people, and its ascendancy lead to a largely peaceful and responsible power on the global stage.
It is this irony, this oxymoron, that is disorienting to many Western observers: that the Chinese Communist Party is the guardian of China’s free-market development; that the socialism it deploys is the protector of liberty and property; that the Party is the only authority that can ensure moderation in China’s international relations.
To understand this, one must look deeper into Chinese cultural history and the nature of the modern Chinese nation state.
Those who look at China from the outside often see a rigid Confucian hierarchy. What they tend to miss is the deeply egalitarian values underlining Confucian morality.
“Those who want to farm are entitled to land.” This most primitive communist value is deeply rooted in Chinese culture. Almost every dynasty began with the new emperor confiscating land from big landowners and evenly distributing it to the population. This is how each new dynasty gained moral authority. Over time, land ownership would again become more concentrated, the dynasty would be overthrown and the cycle would begin anew. The 1949 Communist revolution led by Mao Zedong could be viewed as another beginning of such a cycle.
The second pertinent aspect is the nature of modern China itself. The Western nation-state was shaped by bourgeois revolutions that aimed to advance and protect “liberty and property.” China never had such a bourgeoisie. It was literally dragged into modernity by the military powers of the West. The modern Chinese nation-state was built in the 20th century by the peasantry led by the intelligentsia. Rather than liberty and property, egalitarianism and communitarianism formed its moral foundation.
The respect for individual liberty and private property that informed the modern West were never within the core construct of the modern Chinese nation-state. Instead, China’s national sovereignty was the result of violent struggle against foreign aggression. Only with the knowledge of this historic background can one recognize how miraculous were the changes that Deng Xiaoping launched 30 years ago.
In effect, the Chinese Communist Party leveraged its moral authority as the vanguard of the common man to hold back the egalitarian impulses of the Chinese people and guide a rapid and unprecedented expansion of individual liberties and private property rights.
Further, its unquestioned role in redeeming China first from the humiliating subjugation by Western powers and then from Japanese aggression gives it the unique ability to moderate Chinese nationalism toward the outside world.
Maintaining this moral standing — hence the slogans of socialism and nationalism — is crucial for China to continue on this path. Western-style electoral democracy, as advocated by the West and some inside China, could only lead to tyrannical populism and its twin brother, extreme nationalism.
Today, respect for liberty and private property are at their highest in China’s entire history. It is unprecedented that the rise of a nation of China’s size at such speed is taking place largely in peace. Let’s allow it to continue. If it means that the chair in Oslo will remain empty for decades and generations, so be it. The alternative is far worse.
- posted on 12/14/2010
Today, respect for liberty and private property are at their highest in China’s entire history. It is unprecedented that the rise of a nation of China’s size at such speed is taking place largely in peace. Let’s allow it to continue. If it means that the chair in Oslo will remain empty for decades and generations, so be it. The alternative is far worse.
well reasoned and written, kudos to the writer and ny times!
we've all been exiled from the country long enough to know each other only as mutual strangers:)) - posted on 12/14/2010
After reading the article, the first thing I did was to find out who the author was, and surprisingly and interestingly, here is what the NYT says:
"Eric Li is founder and managing director of a leading venture capital firm in Shanghai. He is a Henry Crown Fellow at the Aspen Institute and a doctoral candidate at Fudan University’s School of International Relations and Public Policy."
He tries to find reason for the current situation from history (dynasty replacement) and culture (Confucius tradition). But I would rather think about the reality: lack of any tangible alternatives. The gap between the status quo and the ideal is simply way too wide to cross by any realistic means.
- posted on 12/14/2010
I recalled reading several NYT article by this eric li. Also did a search on him:
Eric Li, Founder and Managing Director, Chengwei Ventures, Shanghai, China. Eric founded Chengwei Ventures in 1999. With an investment portfolio of over $500 million, Chengwei primarily invests in industrial companies that have scalable business opportunities in the global Chinese economy. Eric’s effort to transform Chinese enterprises—by bringing modern management and leadership, combined with the requisite capital to help them grow, modernize and create in an era of the “new China”—has become the subject of a best-selling book by David Sheff called China Dawn: Culture and Conflict in China’s Business Revolution. Prior to starting Chengwei, Eric was a partner of Orchid Asia Holdings, a private equity investment firm, and made significant investments in various industries in China and the rest of the Asia Pacific region. From 1989 to 1993, he worked for Perot Systems Corporation in Texas, and he also worked in investment banking with J.P. Morgan. Eric co-founded and serves on the Board of Governors of Dulwich College Shanghai, an international school in partnership with Dulwich College of London. He is also Vice Chairman of CEIBS Publishing Group, the publishing arm of the China Europe International Business School. Eric serves on the Board of Trustees of the Berkeley Art Museum and on the advisory council of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Eric received his B.A. from University of California, Berkeley and his M.B.A. from Stanford Business School. Eric is a member of the 2008 class of Henry Crown Fellows at the Aspen Institute.
- posted on 12/14/2010
Someone please educate me on this?
------------
“Those who want to farm are entitled to land.” This most primitive communist value is deeply rooted in Chinese culture. Almost every dynasty began with the new emperor confiscating land from big landowners and evenly distributing it to the population. This is how each new dynasty gained moral authority. Over time, land ownership would again become more concentrated, the dynasty would be overthrown and the cycle would begin anew. The 1949 Communist revolution led by Mao Zedong could be viewed as another beginning of such a cycle.
- posted on 12/15/2010
Almost nonsense. Where did the kid get his Chinese History 101? ;)
Susan wrote:
Someone please educate me on this?
------------
“Those who want to farm are entitled to land.” This most primitive communist value is deeply rooted in Chinese culture. Almost every dynasty began with the new emperor confiscating land from big landowners and evenly distributing it to the population. This is how each new dynasty gained moral authority. Over time, land ownership would again become more concentrated, the dynasty would be overthrown and the cycle would begin anew. The 1949 Communist revolution led by Mao Zedong could be viewed as another beginning of such a cycle. - RE: A Color Revolution in China? Keep It Redposted on 12/15/2010
li may be not a chinese. :) - Re: RE: A Color Revolution in China? Keep It Redposted on 12/15/2010
"respect for liberty and private property are at their highest in China’s entire history"
记得小蜜蜂曾经很社会科学地很定量地说过,三十年代是中国历史上最宽松的时代? - Re: A Color Revolution in China? Keep It Redposted on 12/15/2010
One alternative to the empty chair is to allow Liu's wife to travel to Oslo to receive the prize on his behalf. I don't see how that could be "far worse."
"...It is unprecedented that the rise of a nation of China’s size at such speed is taking place largely in peace. Let’s allow it to continue. If it means that the chair in Oslo will remain empty for decades and generations, so be it. The alternative is far worse. " - posted on 12/15/2010
老瓦 wrote:
Today, respect for liberty and private property are at their highest in China’s entire history. It is unprecedented that the rise of a nation of China’s size at such speed is taking place largely in peace. Let’s allow it to continue. If it means that the chair in Oslo will remain empty for decades and generations, so be it. The alternative is far worse.well reasoned and written, kudos to the writer and ny times!
we've all been exiled from the country long enough to know each other only as mutual strangers:))
my 2 cents this morning for this mr eric li:
firstly, amid the utmost need of securing china's internal social stability, this wonderful piece of writing has earned him enough credential for applying the chief post of ccp's propaganda department, division of global marketing & penetration
second, he might as well have another good shot at uk's economist....why not submit it for one more well deserved paycheck, in £ this time:))
**********************************************
《经济学人》全球民主榜榜单出炉:中国几乎垫底 挪威居首
英国著名杂志《经济学人》发布第三次全球民主指数排名,近来由于刘晓波(专题)获奖事件而风波不断的中国和挪威两国,在榜中排名差距相当大,显示出两国对于民主观念的巨大差异。
据法广12月14日报道,英国经济学人智库(Economist Intelligence Unit)第三次发布全球民主指数排名,排名榜反映了截止2010年11月每个国家的实际情况。在全球167个国家和地区中,因为颁发诺贝尔和平奖给刘晓波(专题)而遭到北京痛斥的挪威政府名列第一。中国政府的民主排名是136,其特别行政区香港则名列80,与南美贫穷国家玻利维亚并驾齐驱。而中国在亚洲最亲密的盟友朝鲜,名列榜尾。
主办者表示,自由和平等选举是民主必备的条件,但如果没有一个透明或至少负责任的政府,仍未足够达至一个完全的民主。报告指出,全球民主化在1974年出现第三波的能量,到了1989年柏林围墙倒塌后更是加速前进,当时全球大约有一半人口活在某种程度的民主体制之下,但到了2008年之后,民主化的步伐在国际上有倒退的迹象。
经济学人智库每隔两年评估全球各国的民主发展,今年评估的地区多达167个,在“选举制度”、“公民自由”、“政府运作”、“政治参与”及“政治文化”五大范畴下设立60个指标,总体评分由最低0分至最高10分。
根据经济学人智库发表民主指数报告,将得8分至10分的地区列入全面民主组别、6至7.9分为缺憾民主、4至5.9视为混合政权,4分以下则为独裁统治,香港属混合政权组别,亚洲区只有韩国和日本列入全面民主组别。
香港排名80,与南美最贫穷国家玻利维亚齐名,远低于韩国、日本、台湾等东南亚国家地区,原因是“选举制度”一项评分太低,得分只得3.5,较王室独裁统治的科威特更低,拖累整体评分。但“公民自由”一项得分达9.41,与全球排名第8的瑞士及日本同分。中国总得分3.14分,在167个地区中排名136,选举制度一项得0分,公民自由得分1.18分。
全球排名前三位的分别为挪威、冰岛及丹麦,都是北欧国家,亚洲区则以韩国及日本排名最高,分列第20及22位,香港排第80位,得分5.92,较两年前上升4位,但仍较台湾、印度、斯里兰卡、泰国、印尼及马来西亚低,新加坡则上升9位,排名82,朝鲜列榜尾,排名167。
- posted on 12/15/2010
Fengzi wrote:
One alternative to the empty chair is to allow Liu's wife to travel to Oslo to receive the prize on his behalf. I don't see how that could be "far worse."
That will indeed be far worse. As an omniscient, omnipotence, omnipresence party, they are not afford to show a slightest hint in front of ruled that they are willing to yield.
Church were furious about the question "Can God create a stone that he cannot lift"? The idea that "there is one thing God cannot do" shakes the fundation of the cathedral. - Re: A Color Revolution in China? Keep It Redposted on 12/15/2010
I think this funny song goes well with Li's amusing commentry.
Jut as it takes patience to finish Li's piece (I did not), it takes some patience for the song to be fully loaded..
http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/kRdTpCGNBok/ - posted on 12/16/2010
The author claimed that China has "deeply egalitarian values underlining Confucian morality", his only example of "egalitarian values" being "confiscating land from big landowners and evenly distributing it to the population", which never actually happened in ancient Chinese history or during the Communist era (not to mention the gross misinterpretation of the term egalitarianism). He went on to say the Communist revolution is just "another beginning of such a cycle", while even CCP itself admits it is "unprecedented". He went as far as saying that there are "egalitarian impulses of the Chinese people" that needs to be "held back" by CCP, as if to say that without CCP, Chinese poeple would, what, confiscate each other's land?
touche wrote:
Almost nonsense. Where did the kid get his Chinese History 101? ;)
Susan wrote:
Someone please educate me on this?
------------
“Those who want to farm are entitled to land.” This most primitive communist value is deeply rooted in Chinese culture. Almost every dynasty began with the new emperor confiscating land from big landowners and evenly distributing it to the population. This is how each new dynasty gained moral authority. Over time, land ownership would again become more concentrated, the dynasty would be overthrown and the cycle would begin anew. The 1949 Communist revolution led by Mao Zedong could be viewed as another beginning of such a cycle. - Re: A Color Revolution in China? Keep It Redposted on 12/16/2010
If the American business schools are capable of producing a bunch of opportunists breaking down the economy, it is not surprising that they can also produce a few graduates who can sink so low both morally and intellectually ... What a shame! - Re: A Color Revolution in China? Keep It Redposted on 12/16/2010
So you are saying the American model is not any better, ...? :-)
WuYing wrote:
If the American business schools are capable of producing a bunch of opportunists breaking down the economy, it is not surprising that they can also produce a few graduates who can sink so low both morally and intellectually ... What a shame! - Re: A Color Revolution in China? Keep It Redposted on 12/16/2010
To say that "almost every dynasty began with the new emperor confiscating land from big landowners and evenly distributing it to the population" is no doubt an overblown statement. But many of those dynasties born from peasant uprising (not military coup) did resort to some sort of primitive idea of egalitarianism, at least at the outset of the uprising. So-called “均贫富”“等贵贱”. You can hardly deny that this primitive egalitarianism and modern communisim share a common core. - posted on 12/17/2010
I was wondering that if egalitarianism and communisim share a common core, why CCP would "hold back" the "egalitarian impulse of Chinese people"? But I think I understand what he was trying to say now: he was probably expressing a genuine concern from the New Rich that an uprising of the unruly poor is in the horizon, and he was convinced that only the continuity of the CCP control can prevent it.
2 cents wrote:
To say that "almost every dynasty began with the new emperor confiscating land from big landowners and evenly distributing it to the population" is no doubt an overblown statement. But many of those dynasties born from peasant uprising (not military coup) did resort to some sort of primitive idea of egalitarianism, at least at the outset of the uprising. So-called “均贫富”“等贵贱”. You can hardly deny that this primitive egalitarianism and modern communisim share a common core. - Re: A Color Revolution in China? Keep It Redposted on 12/17/2010
Eric Li is correct. The current system in China is bad, but any alternative is far worse. It does not mean that there is no hope for China, but that evolution is far better than revolution. - posted on 12/17/2010
Not sure where you come from. Your ideas seem to be all over the map. It was me who brought up peasant uprising. Li made no mentioning of it at all.
The unruly poor is in the horizon? I'm afraid that's your wishful thinking. The truth of the matter inside China is: The poor are ruly; The unruly are not poor. You think LXB spoke for the interests of the poor? No way. What he was fighting for has nothing to do with the poor. It only serves the ideology of the very few unruly liberal intellectuals. That partially explains why the democratic movement in China has never gained any traction.
I was wondering that if egalitarianism and communisim share a common core, why CCP would "hold back" the "egalitarian impulse of Chinese people"? But I think I understand what he was trying to say now: he was probably expressing a genuine concern from the New Rich that an uprising of the unruly poor is in the horizon, and he was convinced that only the continuity of the CCP control can prevent it.
- posted on 12/17/2010
Ok, then explain to me why CCP would "hold back" the "egalitarian impulse of Chinese people"? I am trying to understand Li's logic.
2 cents wrote:
Not sure where you come from. Your ideas seem to be all over the map. It was me who brought up peasant uprising. Li made no mentioning of it at all.
The unruly poor is in the horizon? I'm afraid that's your wishful thinking. The truth of the matter inside China is: The poor are ruly; The unruly are not poor. You think LXB spoke for the interests of the poor? No way. What he was fighting for has nothing to do with the poor. It only serves the ideology of the very few unruly liberal intellectuals. That partially explains why the democratic movement in China has never gained any traction.
I was wondering that if egalitarianism and communisim share a common core, why CCP would "hold back" the "egalitarian impulse of Chinese people"? But I think I understand what he was trying to say now: he was probably expressing a genuine concern from the New Rich that an uprising of the unruly poor is in the horizon, and he was convinced that only the continuity of the CCP control can prevent it.
- Re: A Color Revolution in China? Keep It Redposted on 12/17/2010
it will be nice the above comments are also posted at the NYT websites. - posted on 12/17/2010
Susan wrote:
Ok, then explain to me why CCP would "hold back" the "egalitarian impulse of Chinese people"? I am trying to understand Li's logic.
此CCP不是彼 CCP. 作者这里的CCP是指从邓小平开始的这30年的CCP(见上段最后一句). 当然他要是写成the current CCP会更清楚一些. 以我的经验看, 这也是很多老美对目前CCP最confused的地方.以后再碰上糊涂的老美, 我就用RINO的例子开导他们. The current CCP = CCPINO.
现在的CCP在hold back国人意识中的egalitarian impulse. 这种意识(还有仇富意识), 是历史长期的积累. 人民公社大锅饭算是达到顶峰. 当然,太平天国搞的几乎就是原始共产主义, 也算一个顶峰. 我觉得作者说的均田还是很有历史根据的. 李自成的均田免粮很有名, 还有早他的其他朝代一些农民起义. 均田在隋唐前后实行了有大约几百年(xw能否核实?). 但是, 文中说的“耕者有其田”这种提法, 好像是直到孙中山的民生主义时候才有的.
作者的观点其实是, 在私有产权没有确定之前搞民主容易出现农民起义的那种分赃式的平均主义. 而我们都知道目前的私有产权在中国刚刚起步,产权问题最终必须有健全的法律,乃至宪政的保证. 这些都需要建设. 不是一步就能到位的. 在这之前, CCP起着vanguard的作用.
- posted on 12/17/2010
W wrote:
Eric Li is correct. The current system in China is bad, but any alternative is far worse. It does not mean that there is no hope for China, but that evolution is far better than revolution.
我和马甲的看法一致. 不知道马甲是否代表着silent majority. 其实就是你怎么看待事情. 好比一个学生. 从前他旷课,逃学, 成绩是F. 现在, 他开始认真学习了,一下子成绩变成C了. 你是拿这个C和其他有些人的A比呢?还是和他自己从前的F比. C不是好成绩,勉强及格,肯定而且必须需要提高. 这是事实. 但是从F到C的进步也是举世瞩目. 就看你是结合历史感和观念看问题, 还是只有观念中的A?
不过,我对文章的看法和刘晓波本人无关. 诺奖不是他自己要的. 有人借此攻击他,我不赞成. 有人借此把他树立成一面旗帜,有如当年的周恩来,胡耀邦..死/事后更知君伟大的惯用做法, 为了某种目的捧一个人, 我也不以为然. 但是,有一点, 我没有看到过刘晓波对宪政做过什么. 中国的宪政是我唯一关注的国内政治内容. 无论是体制内的宪政研究,,还是体制外的宪政研究,都有不少人, 我从没有见过刘发表过什么, 甚至传播一些普通的宪政思想. 当然,更没有看到过他参加维权的实际活动. 中国的宪政至少在思想界和知识界,和90年后期的哈耶克热有一定关系.体制转型的东欧国家也是这样. 诺奖如果是真正想帮助中国的走向宪政之路的话,应该深入了解一下真正在兢兢业业地探讨和传播宪政思想的贡献者或者维权行动者.
- posted on 12/17/2010
st dude wrote:
我和马甲的看法一致. 不知道马甲是否代表着silent majority. 其实就是你怎么看待事情. 好比一个学生. 从前他旷课,逃学, 成绩是F. 现在, 他开始认真学习了,一下子成绩变成C了. 你是拿这个C和其他有些人的A比呢?还是和他自己从前的F比. C不是好成绩,勉强及格,肯定而且必须需要提高. 这是事实. 但是从F到C的进步也是举世瞩目. 就看你是结合历史感和观念看问题, 还是只有观念中的A?
老圣,这得看打分的方法。如果像托福鸡阿姨那样,按百分比打分,成绩恐怕就不是这样了。头三十年,世界上有博卡萨、阿明、波尔布特垫底,有众多阵营里的兄弟陪称,我觉得倒还能勉强得个C,后三十年(起码后二十年)就只能得F了。
要出门几天,据说上不了网,先祝豆豆们快乐了。 - posted on 12/17/2010
老圣同学引我蛇出洞,这么复杂的问题。隋唐我知道瓦冈军,李密、翟让,倒是有
破兴洛仓,发放粮,“开仓恣所取,老弱襁负,道路不绝,众至数十万”
故而又有称“粟米瓦冈”,现在这些不吃香啦。
CCPINO是好创词,不愧老圣英诗的修辞功。此文今晨细扫一番,一家之见。能见
NYT更是新鲜。有时我想,这作者是不是小A呢?唉,这也不是我转的贴。
说到革命与财产的关系,我去年读马克思,今年读什么都长了一只经济之眼。要说
西方一般称之为革命的必然有经济上的革命,现在我觉得人的命都比之不及。这点
马基雅维里早说过,当时不认识。新教革命,一是北欧不想纳罗马教皇税,二是瓜
分天主教会田产。这没什么,英国怕天主教回龙,还不是杀人越货太多怕扯不清。
天下强者之田垄,这不是什么社会达尔文,是历史事实嘛。法国大革命,一般人只
看到杀人,我却看到越货。
“耕者有其田”,太理想啦。一般来说,谁能有什么?我买的房子明年不纳税怕就不
是我的了(不小的一笔税哟)。
老圣关心宪政,是大方向。我以前关注人权,看看眼下的经济状况与周身,一提到
“钱”,这也是奢谈了。又说钱,前不久讨债,才发现中国法制不健全。也不是没
有法,关健还是人。我不多谈了,不然网警要跟我贴标签。。。
st dude wrote:
Susan wrote:此CCP不是彼 CCP. 作者这里的CCP是指从邓小平开始的这30年的CCP(见上段最后一句). 当然他要是写成the current CCP会更清楚一些. 以我的经验看, 这也是很多老美对目前CCP最confused的地方.以后再碰上糊涂的老美, 我就用RINO的例子开导他们. The current CCP = CCPINO.
Ok, then explain to me why CCP would "hold back" the "egalitarian impulse of Chinese people"? I am trying to understand Li's logic.
现在的CCP在hold back国人意识中的egalitarian impulse. 这种意识(还有仇富意识), 是历史长期的积累. 人民公社大锅饭算是达到顶峰. 当然,太平天国搞的几乎就是原始共产主义, 也算一个顶峰. 我觉得作者说的均田还是很有历史根据的. 李自成的均田免粮很有名, 还有早他的其他朝代一些农民起义. 均田在隋唐前后实行了有大约几百年(xw能否核实?). 但是, 文中说的“耕者有其田”这种提法, 好像是直到孙中山的民生主义时候才有的.
作者的观点其实是, 在私有产权没有确定之前搞民主容易出现农民起义的那种分赃式的平均主义. 而我们都知道目前的私有产权在中国刚刚起步,产权问题最终必须有健全的法律,乃至宪政的保证. 这些都需要建设. 不是一步就能到位的. 在这之前, CCP起着vanguard的作用.
- Re: A Color Revolution in China? Keep It Redposted on 12/17/2010
Noooo! Ya think? According to 2 cents, it is only a wishful thinking and the truth of the matter inside China is the poor are ruly. :)))
st dude wrote:
作者的观点其实是, 在私有产权没有确定之前搞民主容易出现农民起义的那种分赃式的平均主义. - posted on 12/17/2010
Lucky. My boss never gave me an infinite time to improve from F to C. The moment he finds an A candidate, I am out.
st dude wrote:
我和马甲的看法一致. 不知道马甲是否代表着silent majority. 其实就是你怎么看待事情. 好比一个学生. 从前他旷课,逃学, 成绩是F. 现在, 他开始认真学习了,一下子成绩变成C了. 你是拿这个C和其他有些人的A比呢?还是和他自己从前的F比. C不是好成绩,勉强及格,肯定而且必须需要提高. 这是事实. 但是从F到C的进步也是举世瞩目. 就看你是结合历史感和观念看问题, 还是只有观念中的A?
- posted on 12/18/2010
When it comes to politics, I am more leaning towards pragmatic instead of theoretical thinking. (Scholars in political science feel free to chip in.) There can be endless discussion regarding whether egalitarianism is in Confucius teaching and Chinese culture. But in terms of political power shift and change of political systems, chance, specifically personal role of a strong man, may be of crucial importance. People can talk about Russian culture and history forever, but because of Gorbachev, Soviet Union is no more. Similarly, de Klerk also played a crucial role in ending the apartheid in South Africa. Of course there are those who give credit to Reagan and Mandela, but they are a given, while Gorbachev and de Klerk are not.
I think the fallacy of the argument of Li's article is the claim that any alternative to the CCP rule is worse, which can never be justified unless the alternative is tried. - posted on 12/19/2010
There's a big difference between the American model and the American business schools, especially their finance branches :-) The business schools have turned out poor products in spite of the American model and in spite of their Deans lamenting about the deteriorating ethical and moral standard of their graduates.
Not to bore you and myself with a treatise, a few words to elaborate so as to avoid further misunderstanding.
Definition: "Money" -- Wall Street greed and adventurism.
In spite of its serious weakness, the American political and judicial system is a defense line against the vicious attacks on the society by the "Money". The "Money" hasn't yet completed its success to buy legislation.
Today, the "Money" seems to have discovered a wonderland in modern China where it seems to have met far less resistance. This might explain the re-posted rediculous commentary.
P.s. the financial capital of the world has united, and the working people in both East and West have been on the losing side. As the joke goes, rise already! The only thing you may lose is your chair :-)
passerby wrote:
So you are saying the American model is not any better, ...? :-)
WuYing wrote:
If the American business schools are capable of producing a bunch of opportunists breaking down the economy, it is not surprising that they can also produce a few graduates who can sink so low both morally and intellectually ... What a shame! - Re: A Color Revolution in China? Keep It Redposted on 12/20/2010
st dude wrote:
作者的观点其实是, 在私有产权没有确定之前搞民主容易出现农民起义的那种分赃式的平均主义. 而我们都知道目前的私有产权在中国刚刚起步,产权问题最终必须有健全的法律,乃至宪政的保证. 这些都需要建设. 不是一步就能到位的. 在这之前, CCP起着vanguard的作用.
都德,风水轮流转,江山变色也不过才六十年,私有产权这个魔术棒,被如此掌上把玩,不免也太合情合理、有理有据了哈? - posted on 12/23/2010
行人 wrote:
老圣,这得看打分的方法。如果像托福鸡阿姨那样,按百分比打分,成绩恐怕就不是这样了。头三十年,世界上有博卡萨、阿明、波尔布特垫底,有众多阵营里的兄弟陪称,我觉得倒还能勉强得个C,后三十年(起码后二十年)就只能得F了。
你看你, 你这就是给社科难上加难, 乱上添乱. 我给C,你给F, 肯定还有人给A. 难怪老瓦开始走向数据犬儒主义了. 更糟糕的是, 我是从F->C. 你倒好, 从C->F, 和我正相反, 够后现代的. 但愿当年司马迁和我相似, 否则如果和你相似,他写的历史我都要反着看.
Susan wrote:
Lucky. My boss never gave me an infinite time to improve from F to C. The moment he finds an A candidate, I am out.
你说的意思是竞争, 和我所指的不是一回事.
一个A的人从来都是fire boss的. 一般情况下, 如果一个工作位置是C(C的资格, C的责任, C的工资….),你放心,不会有A来和你竞争的. 来争的都是C,D,F. 有D和F来争是因为人都是向上高攀的,愿意冒这个风险.
xw wrote:破兴洛仓,发放粮,“开仓恣所取,老弱襁负,道路不绝,众至数十万”
老圣同学引我蛇出洞,这么复杂的问题。隋唐我知道瓦冈军,李密、翟让,倒是有
我是想问,是不是有这么一回事,从五代十国一直到隋和唐, 国家/政府对农民实行均田制.
老瓦 wrote:
都德,风水轮流转,江山变色也不过才六十年,私有产权这个魔术棒,被如此掌上把玩,不免也太合情合理、有理有据了哈?
中国现在的经济成分已经达到60%私有了, 谁的手掌还能大到把私有产权当棒子在手里玩? 但, 私有产权是个magic, 这倒一点都不假. 就是为什么在经济学家眼里, 人类历史只有两个阶段: 第一个阶段是财产权得不到保障的阶段,这是贫穷阶段. 后一个阶段是财产权逐渐得到保障的阶段, 是经济走向繁荣富裕阶段.无论你搞什么政体,玩什么主义, 建什么样的社会, 只要你的每一个公民的私有产权得到充分保障, 你就不会贫穷. 私有产权就是有这个magic. 其实道理也很简单. 保障私有产权就是尊重和保护你的劳动成果. 只有得到了尊重和保护,你才愿意劳动去创造成果,积累成果, 财富就是这样产生出来的. 这就是为什么私有产权是宪政的三大核心理念之一.
另外, 你举的那个民主排名. 香港排在第80位. 可是, 香港已经连续十几年年年被评为经济最自由的国家第一位. 第一位和第80位. 这两个数据可以告诉我们很多道理. 再谈吧.
- posted on 12/23/2010
Somebody just cannot read between the lines. You don't think it is strange that the CCP's control in China is not allowed to be 竞争ed?
It is funny that you mentioned this, coz I just fired my boss. You can save your breath. :)))
st dude wrote:
Susan wrote:你说的意思是竞争, 和我所指的不是一回事.
Lucky. My boss never gave me an infinite time to improve from F to C. The moment he finds an A candidate, I am out.
一个A的人从来都是fire boss的. 一般情况下, 如果一个工作位置是C(C的资格, C的责任, C的工资….),你放心,不会有A来和你竞争的. 来争的都是C,D,F. 有D和F来争是因为人都是向上高攀的,愿意冒这个风险. - posted on 12/29/2010
Let me try. :-)
This Li Eric guy was not barking up the wrong tree entirely. He was just a bit naive. He took the slogans high up on the flag poles of each peasants uprising too seriously as if they were the actual outcome when the old orders were overthrown and the new emperor sat down to reward his peasants-turned generals. Egalitarian slogans were indeed almost always used (and effectively) to incite the followers who were mostly poor peasants, but the promises were almost never kept: The lands were simply redistributed among the newly minted rich and powerful.
Susan wrote:
Someone please educate me on this?
------------
“Those who want to farm are entitled to land.” This most primitive communist value is deeply rooted in Chinese culture. Almost every dynasty began with the new emperor confiscating land from big landowners and evenly distributing it to the population. This is how each new dynasty gained moral authority. Over time, land ownership would again become more concentrated, the dynasty would be overthrown and the cycle would begin anew. The 1949 Communist revolution led by Mao Zedong could be viewed as another beginning of such a cycle.
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation