[scandox]

Once again it seems to me that Ai Wei Wei's quote about China is pertinent:

“Can China be a global power? I don’t think so. It can gain an advantage, that’s true. But it doesn’t have soul. It doesn’t have heart. It doesn’t trust its own people. So it has no self-identity in the sense that it has never accepted human rights as common values. No freedom of speech, no independent judicial system. If those don’t exist, how can you have creativity? How can you be a country? So forget about China. China is an illusion. It’s there, it’s large. But nobody can tell you what it is.”

We live so much with representational democracy - so close to it - that we take it entirely for granted. We imagine that our situation would be somehow replicable with other forms of government. That we could have a benign autocracy and everything could be the same. People talk about China as if they're just a slightly different version of us. But instead of a mirror or an aspiration they ought to be a warning.

[majewsky]

> Can China be a global power? I don’t think so.

China arguably is a global power today. I think what Ai Weiwei means is if China can be a long-lasting empire like the Roman or the British Empire.

Also, this reminds me of the classic Upton Sinclair quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." The man being Weiwei in this case.

[hangonhn]

The British Empire is not all that long lasting compared to some of the Chinese ones that has existed in the past. China as a civilization has arguably outlived everyone. (The Roman empire, if you include the Byzantine, is arguably the longest lasting empires).

[tomca32]

"It doesn’t have heart. It doesn’t trust its own people. So it has no self-identity in the sense that it has never accepted human rights as common values. No freedom of speech, no independent judicial system."

All of this was true of the USSR and yet it was a global super-power for half a century.

[scandox]

China is and will be a super power but the point is it won’t have deep roots in culture and time unless it becomes driven by a wider base.

[hangonhn]

Man, I just now understood Ai Weiwei's statement because of your comment. China, as a civilization, has had a diminishing influence on the world, culturally speaking, since the Tang or perhaps the Song dynasty. The strictness and centralized power of the last two dynasty and current government really shackled the creative output of its people. While we can argue that the Han and Tang dynasty has an influence on the world, it's hard to say the same of the dynasties that followed.

[tabtab]

It was a military super-power, yes, but that was about it. With the possible exception of having some great classical-style composers, it otherwise was not an inspiring country. You sided with them to have big weapons on your side, not for any other reason.

[hangonhn]

I think that's a bit unfair. Their ideals did inspire a number of other countries to revolution, including China. The USSR did it first and its example was emulated by other countries with some local variations. Many of the early Chinese leaders were educated in the USSR and inspired by Lenin and even Stalin. I think it's only in our backwards looking view, having "won" the Cold War, that the USSR doesn't look so inspiring but to a early 1900s peasant, a successful peasant revolt that toppled a great empire is nothing to sneeze at.

[tomca32]

It also inspired half of the world and had a massive cultural, artistic and sports influence across the whole world. Space program that was well ahead of the US for a good period time.

Classical composers as you mentioned, literature (Russian realism), opera & ballet. Russian academies in those areas are still considered the best in the world.

[tabtab]

There was a brief period from about 1957 to 1965 where they seemed to be gaining steam; but other than that, it was mostly other dictators that tried to emulate and/or side with them, not general populations.

[anoncomment937]

Is that really needed for creativity? Most of human history was ruled by monarchs and yet we had extremely creative people.

When England was a world power, they weren’t exactly known for human rights and yet they lead the Industrial Revolution.

Even in Jim Crow America, there was still a lot of creativity from those that were oppressed.