[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.

[fauigerzigerk]

You accuse me of basing my opinion on western media alone, which isn't true, and at the same time you complain that I disagree with western media and western experts on the very matter we're talking about, which is the speed of transition and how it can be brought about.

You say things are not as bad as I say. How do you know that? There is no free press. Bloggers are put in jail. The government runs massive censorship operations leading to Google's exit from China. You may not know everything that happens in the country. I for one do not know everything that happens in my country just from talking to friends and family.

If things are not as bad and everyone wants democracy anyway why is all that censorship and oppression of freedom of speech is necessary? I don't get the logic that this should be necessary to ensure a smooth transition to democracy. I think it is just an excuse and all the talk of China being so different and foreigners not understanding it is just one big excuse put forward by the very people who benefit from keeping the status quo. Of course senior officials keep talking about democracy. All communist regimes have always done that. They just define democracy in a way that is laughable.

A quick look at the wikipedia page for S. Korea also shows that it is not the shinging example of a smooth transition to democracy that you make it out to be. There's talk of coup d'etas, student uprisings, massive repression and large protests _demanding_ democracy. Also, their dictatorship was the result of war, not of ideological commitment.

Concentration of wealth is indeed controversial everywhere and I am very critical of what happens in the west in this regard. But the big difference is that in a democracy rules based on the will of the people and wealth is not usually concentrated in the hands of politicians and their families as is the case in China. Rules in China are based on the gun. China's government has no legitimacy to determine distribution of wealth and much less do they have a right to steal it for themselves. In fact they have no legitimacy to make any rules at all. I simply do not accept that they speak for the Chinese people. They speak only for themselves.

I do agree with you that a rising middle class and better education is the nucleus for democracy. That middle class will not want to have their wealth stolen by corrupt officials. Unfortunately, to a substiantial degree, the wealthy _are_ corrupt officials or people close to them. That's why I don't think a pseudo pragmatic "let's wait" approach is necessarily going to work. Such a defensive approach could just as well lead to China sinking deeper into corrupt cronyism and once growth slows down a bit the whole thing could blow up violently. You should at least consider that outcome a possibility. I think the Chinese leadership does consider that possibility and that may be why they are so desperately trying to oppress freedom of speech. They don't want people to see the full extent of corruption. They want them to believe what you believe, that it's all not that bad.

I don't claim to know enough about China at all. What I'm saying is that no one ever knows enough about any country to make accurate predictions and engineer a smooth transition to anything. Making claims about how one culture is "not ready" and stuff like that is suspicious in my eyes. My ancestors never believed that their home country would turn against them and kill them together with millions of others. That's why I think it is dangerous to go a slow unprincipled route, hoping it is the route to democracy.

What I do state unconditionally, accepting you may call it self-righteous, is this: There is never a historical or cultural situation in which opqueness and censorship leads to a better outcome. Covering up things leads to suspicion, envy, conspiracy theories, hidden interests, etc. I think these are social invariants. Making decisions based on more and better information is always preferrable to making them based on less and false information. That is my opinion and it is not based on anything specific to China. It's ideology if you will. Pragmatism that leads you to believe that 2 + 2 = 5 is faulty.