[lhuang]

Why is it that you believe the CCP's decisions are terrible?

At the meta level, China has outpaced everyone in the past twenty years in regards to growth and development.

Among the senior CCP leaders, I imagine most if not all, acknowledge that an open, capitalistic democracy is inevitable. Their job is to grow the country to the point where the transition to said democracy is peaceful and smooth.

No China analyst worth his salt will argue that China is ready for this transition today....

[rms]

I'm not convinced that the Chinese economic growth is sustainable. For the sake of all those Chinese without Urban Residency Permits I hope the growth continues, but I am not optimistic.

And yes, a sudden transition to democracy would be disastrous for China. However, a safe and slow transition could begin today.

Btw this is mostly a disagreement of relative morals, where we in the West have this concept that a government should be "good" where that word doesn't have the same meaning in China.

[lhuang]

But how should the transition even begin? By repealing all internet censorship laws?

Most people don't realize that every day the situation in China improves for the better. Even the stiffling hukou system that you allude to has been slowly weakened over the years.

In regards to your last sentence I'm not quite sure what you mean. I took it to mean that the social ideas of justice and law are different in China, of which I would tend to agree.

West = rule of law. China = rule by law.

Frankly I think Chinese society is just not ready for democracy. There is simply no civic society.

[rms]

The transition should probably begin by allowing the free formation of civic groups... that's one of the most important institutions missing in China.

[lhuang]

There are civic groups in China, many in fact. The government has even been tolerant, to a degree, to advocacy groups.

I think for a smooth transition, China needs to uplift its rural population. The urbanites are largely ready for democracy, but outside of a handful of cities the rest of the country simply do not have the institutions, social experience, etc to support a working transparent free-market democracy.

[pgbovine]

sorry for the meta-comment, but i'm dismayed by the use of down-votes for posts expressing unpopular opinions (unpopular w.r.t. the hacker news audience). it's gotten so bad that i can quickly pinpoint dissenting opinions by scrolling quickly through a thread and looking for big blocks of grayed-out text (in contrast, down-votes for one-liners like "lulz ur a fag" are usually justified).

[rms]

Yeah, I upvoted lhuang, his was not the kind of wrong dissent that deserved a downvote but the type of dissent that comes naturally on a complex issue without a right answer.

[lhuang]

what i find surprising is that only those users with high karma points can downvote.

excluding those who've racked up points through submissions, the theory goes that high karma points = thoughtful poster.

thoughtful posters should thus realize that China is a country of 1.3 billion people, which highly highly complicates EVERYTHING.

Frankly, compared to the other 1 bln + country, I think China has done a remarkable job. Even if you just focus on the HR record, China is comparable to India, if not exceeding it.

[shrikant]

If by HR you mean "Human Rights", then both me and a most basic Google search are obliged to tell you, good sir, that you are full of it.

[lhuang]

In India... Caste systems are still the norm, the government is as corrupt if not more so than Chinese. Millions and millions still languish in poverty. Crime is higher!

China is worse in regards to suppressing free speech and political dissidents. Everything else; poverty, crime, development India either lags or is just as bad.

[Xichekolas]

To go meta on this meta, I think the requirement to downvote is still something like 200 to 250 karma. With a couple good submissions or comments, you could have that in a matter of days.

The community has grown, and these restrictions aren't "indexed to inflation" so to speak, so the bar is lower all the time. Also, while I personally agree that downvotes should only be used for trollish things (or really just done away with in favor of flagging), that has never been universally agreed upon (and I have seen this topic come up a lot).

[isleyaardvark]

No offense, but this talk of a slow transition to democracy makes me think of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Letter From a Birmingham jail:

"Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter."

[lhuang]

Dude. Has China opened up in the last 30 years? Is life better for the average Chinese? Has society not been more liberalized?

Tell me how China can democratize today without massive social upheaval? Tell me how this can be accomplished without throwing millions of Chinese back into poverty?

Thats the problem. China has 1.3 billion fucking people! The institutions in place are as fragile as the CCP (very). All sorts of social problems are on the verge ALL THE TIME of bubbling over.

Tell me how China can transition in the short-term before giving me these bullshit passionate appeals of "freedom" and "democracy".

Soundbytes sound GREAT. I personally LOVE them, but they add LITTLE to this debate.

[isleyaardvark]

Tell me how China can democratize tomorrow without massive social upheaval. Is it going to be another 30 years?

I don't think the Letter From a Birmingham Jail is a soundbite, nor a "bullshit passionate appeal". It's worth reading in full: http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.h...

[lhuang]

I'm a big fan of MLK. He once said "the arch of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice"

You could argue that this applies to China. Change is long and slow, but there is progress being made. The situation today, even with its restrictions, is 100x better than it was 10, 20, 30 years ago. There is little reason to believe that it won't continue to improve.

The middle class is growing, people are increasingly more educated, these two things are major ingredients for democracy.

Why I think you're use of his Letter From Birmingham Jail is a "bullshit passionate appeal" is because the context that his letter was written in and the current Chinese climate are two different beasts.

Are my points that off? I'm surprised by how much opposition I've incurred on HN. The points I've raised and the arguments I've made are not radical. They are in fact widely accepted / endorsed by the majority of China scholars in the west.

[isleyaardvark]

The reason I use the Letter is the point MLK makes is that it will always be "too soon" for democracy. I can't think of a single democracy that had an easy or peaceful transition. About the closest I can think of is the short-lived "Prague Spring".

I'm not a complete stranger to China. I've heard this same slow progress argument before. 10 years ago, "China's making progress", 20 years ago, "China's making progress". There's that horse and buggy pace. If China had made that much progress, they'd be there already. People in China in favor of democracy should have support, and "you're not ready for it" isn't support.

[fauigerzigerk]

If the people of Europe had waited for the ruling class to tell us when we were ready for democracy, we would still be waiting. It's an illusion to believe that readiness for democracy is something that grows over time. Quite the contrary. Blocking it for too long increases the risk of a very violent transition. It's called revolution. The Chinese leadership should know a thing or two about that.

[lhuang]

"It's an illusion to believe that readiness for democracy is something that grows over time."

You're missing the point. Its not is China ready for democracy? but rather how can China transition to democracy smoothly without a total collapse of economic, political, and social institutions? ... as is so common in the historical record.

"Blocking it for too long increases the risk of a very violent transition. It's called revolution. "

Not true. Plenty of countries have transitioned from totalitarianism --> democracy slowly and smoothly. China's neighbors of S. Korea and Japan are two examples. You could argue that Taiwan applies as well.

[fauigerzigerk]

The question is who determines what the right speed is. You are deferring to a corrupt gang of thugs with guns (the communist party and its army) whose kids are the new super rich of the country to determine when the right time has come for them to give up power and wealth.

The transition to democracy in most other countries was the result of great struggles, sometimes more violent, sometimes more peaceful, but I don't know of many cases in which those in power have simply announced one day that the time is now right for them to pass on their power to the people.

Your attitude is self defeating.

[lhuang]

My attitude is pragmatic.

Both S. Korea and Japan transitioned from totalitarian governments to open democracies peacefully and smoothly. These transitions were stimulated in part by strong economies, a growing middle class, a more educated populace, etc.

But enough with examples. Tell me an actionable plan for China to transition to democracy. You're not offering anything but nice sounding sound bytes.

That and the people in China themselves are not fully clamoring for democracy. Economic progress, rise in standards of living, and a better future is what the Chinese want.

My attitude may be "self defeating" but your attitude is self-righteous.

http://gizmodo.com/5500578/google-would-remind-my-grandpa-of...

[fauigerzigerk]

You're calling me self-righteous and at the same time you're asking me for a plan? Look, all I'm saying is that the clique in power will not give up voluntarily. If you want democracy you must put pressure on them because they have a vested interest in staying in power and that interest doesn't go away. It's not a question of speed. So the plan is simple. Demand change!

You may be right that democracy is not the word used by most Chinese to talk about what they want. Those who do use that word are brutally oppressed after all. But I'm sure the Chinese don't want corruption. I'm sure they're not happy if so much of the wealth ends up with the kids of party officials, which a recent study has shown. I'm sure they want rule of law so their homes cannot simply be expropriated if some bigwig wants to sell the land to BigCorp. I'm sure minorities like homosexuals (usually 10% to 20% of a population) in China do not want to be discriminated against. Democracy isn't just a "nice sounding sound byte". It's all of the above and it's very pragmatic. Just look at the correlation of wealth and democracy and compare that to the correlation of corruption, dictatorship and poverty.

But you know, I'm an individual, not some representative of a culture, so if you run out of arguments, please at least spare me the blanket colonialism argument. I wasn't there. Many dictators have been using it as an excuse for their crimes and you are buying it.

[lhuang]

I call you self-righteous because you don't seem to know much about the situation in China, but make blanket statements based on a few readings of prominent western publications.

Look, we're both on the same page. Democracy in China is good. Demanding democracy is good.

The matter at hand is how best to transition to a true meaningful democracy. My point, that transition should come slow in order to minimize social/economic/political disruption is on point. EVERY prominent western publications agree on this matter.

Slow transition is pragmatic, and favoring it does not equate one to a CCP sympathizer nor is it self defeatist. Different strokes for different folks.

China has already proven that one can spur economic development by going its own way instead of following western policies. There is no reason to believe that it can't transition to a democracy there own way as well.

Your assertion that those in power do not want to give it up and a slow transition to democracy are not mutually exclusive. AGAIN many of China's neighbors have been able to make this transition so I don't see why this can't be done in China. True, dictators don't want to give up power. The trick is making them do so with non-violent disruptive means, and that can be achieved with a large middle class, educated polity, etc things that provide collective power to the masses.

I urge you to actually visit China and you'll see that not all people who use the word "democracy" are brutally oppressed. By god, even senior ranking members of the CCP have used the term during state speeches!

In regards to corruption you are right that its a big issue, although I know of no study that states the problem is as big as you make it. That said, do note that concentration of wealth/power among the social elite is an unfortunate part of reality the world over, the west included.

The main point though that I want to get across is that people like you, smart educated westerners, need to realize that the problems in China are not NEARLY at the level that the media presents it to be. Anyone who has visited China in the past few years can attest to this. Even in the countryside, many problems have been SEVERELY alleviated.

The problems you have listed and the China you have presented is really a caricature of present reality.

[shadowsun7]

Hi lhuang, I'm not exactly sure that China's economic growth is correlated to the CCP's decisions. If the CCP makes a mistake or two (or even three, for that matter) - it's very likely that China would still continue growing anyway. I believe the country's reached a momentum where even stupid, really dumb decisions won't make a dent in its growth.

[lhuang]

This is certainly not the popular conventional view.

For the most part, the CCP and their decisions have been largely credited for China's stellar growth.

If you've ever been to China you'll quickly see why. If the government wants something done, its done. Case in point: 2008 Olympics, special economic zones, foreign exchange rate policies, etc.

Before kaifang (opening), China was ass-backwards. The CCP's sole claim to legitimacy is a bizzare positive-negative re-enforcement of two points:

1. Negative: China has been bullied by the world until the CCP came in 2. Positive: China is now an economic power because of CCP policies

The CPP uses these two points to bolster each other in linking CCP directly with nationalism so that pro-China = pro-ccp.

[shadowsun7]

For the most part, the CCP and their decisions have been largely credited for China's stellar growth.

That's the point I'm trying to make. The CCP and their decisions have been credited for China's stellar growth because the CCP say it is so. I get the impression more than anything else that the policies related to kaifang (funny how they use house in that word) is the primary cause for China's growth. Everything else the CCP does is secondary to just the plain economic power you unleash by opening up China to the global market.

It makes perfect sense, of course, for the CCP to lay claim to all the growth. But just because it's happening doesn't mean it's happening because of them. You don't take credit for your boat's speed; not when said boat is on a particularly fierce river. You may take credit for the control of said boat, though ... but I'm not sure if the CCP is efficient enough to do more than the minimum on that. Particularly so with the bureaucracy and the corruption that is endemic to the system at the moment.

If the river dries up (which it won't) the CCP will find out just how efficient their policies really are. And then - and only then - they can argue that they're responsible for economic growth. All I'm saying is that right now it just seems that they're protected from their mistakes by the sheer power of their growing economy; and therefore you can't argue that the CCP's policies are good simply because China's economy is good.

[lhuang]

I'm not sure your boat analogy applies in the world of economics.

Many nations have the ingredients for a robust economy; skilled labor, an abundance of resources, etc. but that doesn't guarantee anything.

A more apt analogy would be cooking. Simply having the right ingredients and throwing them in a pot won't magically transform them into a delicious dish. It takes a skilled chef to elevate individual ingredients to a combined dish.

There is a reason the Chinese economy has grown unchecked for the past 20+ years, surviving this recession and the 1997 asian financial crisis, while comparable economies took dives.

I could write paragraphs on why China's economic growth can be contributed to CCP policy but frankly there is enough documentation readily available on the web - much of it written by western academics.

To start, you can read about CCP policies on SEZs, exchange rate, NPL reform (once 20% of its total loan portfolio!!!), and its huge investments in green tech. The last of which is so much smarter than what our representatives in government are doing here in the states.