China still searching for an effective governance system

Comments on Neil Thomas "The Cultural Revolution will not be revived", 1/06/2016

The statement by the author that “‘What the Cultural Revolution did was to teach the Party not to trust its own people’”, does not seem to be a correct characterisation of the Party’s official line. The party’s official line on the key lessons from the Cultural Revolution has been to prevent excessive personal power and authoritarian at the expense of collective leadership style, at all levels, particularly at the very top level of party leadership. It was Mao’s huge popularity with the people and with people’s trust through the revolutionary struggle against Guomingdang regime led by Jiang Jieshi and the establishment of the PRC that made it possible for Mao to launch the Cultural Revolution in the mid 1960s.

However, personal power has the power of addiction, not just in China but also in the west (e.g. JH’s stay as the prime minister until he lost his seat and the changes to prime ministership in the past few years in Australia, as good examples), even though the Communism system has made it much easier to occur. The person, whoever is on the top, would like to continue that power.

Having said that, China has developed and established a system of power transition at the party’s very top, as the past three transitions indicate. It will still be a long way to go for China to have a complete system where power transition is not just a matter for the elites but the people to have a true and more effective democratic voice in deciding who will be the leader or in the leadership team.

No system is perfect and that is why we have see the Trump factor in the USA now and surprises many people have and have expressed worldwide.

The above mentioned changes in the prime ministership in Australia, in conjunction with the difficulties for the government to carry out much needed reforms to further raise living standard and improve equality, also reflect some shortcomings in the west system.

China is still searching for an effective and stable system of governance. How long it will take to have it is a question of interests by many.

Lucy Turnbull's affirmative argument for capitalism

Comments on Lucy Turnbull “Capitalism is still the only system that works”, 9/08/2010, http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/capitalism-is-still-the-only-system-that-works-20100808-11q55.html?posted=sucessful
I note that Lucy has used China as an example to support her argument for capitalism.

However, Lucy did not say whether China is a capitalism system or not.

Most people argue about capitalism and communism as two extremes. But the reality is that most systems are not in those extremes and are somewhat in the areas not too far from the centre of the spectrum.

In most capitalism system, there are elements of socialism and in the few official socialism systems left, they are introduce capitalism elements.

Socialism or communism in its original and extreme form is dead, but it does not mean no other less extreme ones are left.

Capitalism has also evolved quite a lot from its original extreme form. Social welfares, though still swing around, are not based on the extreme capitalism. Government interventions or regulations, are not that either.

What is the future of the two systems?

It is highly likely that they will become different parties within a country; all will try to win the voters and become the government. In doing so, they will all adopt or evolve to become relevant.

There will no extreme capitalism, nor extreme socialism. Neither will exist for long, if any one or party adopts them.

It means both will coexist and compete.

This should tell if Lucy’s argument is correct or not.

Optimality in valuing individuals and community, as well as referencing and substance

Second and third comments on Peter Friedman “Plagiarism and China’s future economic development”, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/05/26/plagiarism-and-chinas-future-economic-development/

It would make the points of my earlier clear by stating the following:

1. There is a difference in terms of the weights given to individuals and community/nation between East Asian countries and the mainstream western countries. There may be a case of optimal weighting, although even optimal weighting may mean different weighting in different countries.

2. There are both tendances of under-referencing and over-referencing in the world.

3. Under-referencing has the danger of under valuing the sources and plagiarism.

4. Over-referencing has the danger of referencing for referencing sake and using referencing rather than own creativity to shore up a paper, document and etc. That is to say, some papers or documents may not have their own real substance, but use impressive references as a cover for poor quality.

5. Again, there may be a case for optimal referencing. Yet again, optimal referencing may vary between countries, even professions.

An important point that I left out just a moment ago is that Peter Friedman may have inadvertently created an undesirable and wrong impression that the Chinese don't value property rights especially intellectual ones and plagiarism is deemed as the right thing by the Chinese.

Clearly that is not the case in China and the absolute majority despise plagiarism.

David Burchell will surely be disappointed

Comments on David Burchell “Lest we forget, China's party killed millions”, 5/10/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26164177-7583,00.html

Burchell concludes his article in this way:

"From these awful revelations come two conclusions. First: that the Chinese Communist Party, now engaged in its ballet of self-celebration and self-delusion, is arguably the greatest violator of human rights in the history of the planet. (Even today, almost every one of the world's most inhumane states - from North Korea to Sudan to Zimbabwe - is a Chinese client.) Second: that when the era of the party's monopoly over China's public life comes to an end - as it will before too long - its undertakers will come, like Yang, from within its own ranks. China has had its Solzhenitsyn, you might say. It still awaits its Gorbachev."

However, he may be disappointed that his conclusions are unlikely to be anywhere near or close to the true.

There is no dispute that in the late 1950s and the early 1960s there was a big famine in china and many Chinese died of that. The “great leap forward” campaign, as well as the sudden deterioration in the relations between China and the former USSR, partly contributed to the severity of the famine that was a result of bad weather. It was a very sad episode of the first 28 year of Communism China under Mao.

However, that episode nearly 50 years ago does not mean that “that the Chinese Communist Party, now engaged in its ballet of self-celebration and self-delusion, is arguably the greatest violator of human rights in the history of the planet”, or “China's party killed millions”, as Burchell claims.

Hundreds of millions of Chinese have been lifted out of poverty as a result of China’s remarkably successful economic reforms over the last 30 years, under what Burchell branded as “the greatest violator of human rights in the history of the planet” - the Chinese Communist Party.

So it is incorrect to cite its past mistakes to argue that the Chinese Communist Party “is arguably the greatest violator of human rights in the history of the planet”. To argue that way is no different to saying that the earlier Europeans invaded and occupied the land now is called USA and slotted many Indigenous Indians during that process and from that Burchell would say the Americans are the greatest genocide.

Is that argument right? No definitely not. But that shows the absurdity of Burchell’s nonsense argument and illogic.

Secondly, Burchell says that China “still awaits its Gorbachev”. It is no different to daydreaming.

If the former USSR or Russia had benefited from Gorbachev, then it would be reasonable to argue that China might await its Gorbachev. But the problem is that both have suffered greatly following the Gorbachev era and the collapse of the former USSR. The Chinese have now realised that what Gorbachev did, if adopted by China, could only lead to chaos and a collapse in living standards.

No sane people would want a country to go down that path, except that Burchell is wishing China to. But he will be dismayed by the rejection of the Chinese.

The Russians have rejected Gorbachev. So have the Chinese.

China's historical progress

Comments on Alan Kohler “China's historical whitewash”, 2/10/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Overcoming-Chinas-past-pd20091002-WESM4?OpenDocument&src=sph

Alan, maybe the first half of the past 60 years was a learning period for the Chinese communists and paid a heavy fee for that learning.

In retrospect, it was also a learning period for the world's all communists, with the Chinese communists having survived while the USSR collapsed.

The result is that the Chinese communists now are a different school of communism altogether. In light of that, they may have become Adenauer in the East! That is likely to have profound implications for not China but also the world.

While it is regrettable that the first half was disastrous for China, the Chinese have moved on and are now looking into the future, as opposed to dwelling in the past.

There is no point for us outsiders to revisit their pains if they don’t want to. So we probably need to move on as well.

More fundamental factors in play in history

Comments on Robert Manne “Past another turning point in history”, 26/09/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26124842-7583,00.html

While your view of the left and the right in the west may have some truth, your have ignored some important points of their evolutions. You only noticed the bad aspects of the former USSR and ignored its any merits, even though you are a professor in history.

I am not a historian as you are. But it appears to me that there have been some more fundamental factors in play than what you have relied on for your argument.

I think one has got to look at the history more objectively, in the context of both longer history and wider social and international perspectives.

Did the rise of Keynesian have anything to do with the creation of the Soviet Russia and the USSR as a competing social system?

Did the re-emergence of the right or neo-liberalism have anything to do with the inability of government intervention based on the Keynesian aggregate demand management, or the failure of the both Keynesians and monetarists to come up with more effective macroeconomic tools to deal with the supply side macroeconomic problems as a result of the first oil shock?

Will the current crisis and the success of some developing economies in the east generate other new economic and social thinking beyond the confines of the left and the right in the west?