dagblog - Comments for "High Anxiety Of The China Variety"

In case anyone visits this

artappraiser — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 19:28:14 +0000

In case anyone visits this old thread, I did want to make my own personal views more clear. You took my citation exactly the way I intended it, destor, adding this kind of nuance to your intial writings:

....So, this isn't the Middle East and it's not exactly 1984 either...

China's government has learned how to avoid collapse by being selectively flexible, while so many other totalitarian states choose complete rigidity...

Personally, I am so much more with the Vaclav Havel side of things. I imagine myself dealing with a Chinese bureaucrat about something and I get shivers down my spine. (I will admit I even get a tiny bit of uneasiness reading some of the prognostications for a new US society by Dan Kervick types--ok if you want some big grand temporary work projects to get an economy back on its feet, no thanks if you're talking about growing the government white collar bureaucracy, and hoping things happen like my neighbors will become empowered in communal activism to pressure me into what the community considers a proper kind of life.)

But I don't see how over simplifying the very real differences of another culture--one where I admittedly would probably not be happy--is going to help anyone accomplish anything useful.

What! Damn, I am going to

Saladin — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 16:43:26 +0000

In reply to Hey Sal, are you over on Frum

What!

Damn, I am going to need a lawyer?

Yes one could go on, I keep

Saladin — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 16:39:54 +0000

In reply to Your confusing my opposition

Yes one could go on, I keep expecting them to announce the discovery of a Song dynasty cell phone. I'm well aware of their historic contributions and greatly look forward to coming engineering contributions, particularly in renewable and industrial ecology. But that is not really the point, and you are switching the argument. Their government does not share our values, and in fact works to undermine them.

Somehow I doubt you would justify repression by caste, race, or sex because of differing cultural values. That would directly conflict with your political values, somehow because Chinese civilization is old and made some contributions it gets a pass? Jewish civilization is even older, and has equally contributed does that justify Palestinian apartheid?

If you say yes, at least you are consistent, even if I would disrespectfully disagree with you.

FWIW the hegemony of our consumer capitalism is no longer our own, it has moved beyond us becoming a global phenomenon, that was entirely my point to Destor. Regardless I will still fight for a moral world, with appropriate values. I would ask you to reconsider your knee-jerk anti-Americanism and re-embrace our shared values.

Thanks, Artsy. I checked out

Oxy Mora — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 15:47:01 +0000

In reply to I would not be surprised to

Thanks, Artsy.

I checked out the article on Huffpo where Lee lists ten points. I was really prepared not to like her or the book. She is a young elite with all the educational and investment banking connections, but one doesn't know the state of a privileged upbringing or not. I think one has to simply put aside the fact of what China is to get any value whatsoever from Lee;s "lessons".

What she actually does is highlight many of the problems Progressives have already identified, particularly in the financial structure in the U.S. As such she is politely taunting Wall St. and, I would say, regressive social elements of the Republican party in the sense of---"you're getting your clock cleaned because you've abandoned sensible policies which even China sees as advantageous".

Some of her points. The need for more investment in education. Restrict banks to traditional banking functions. Encourage capitalism in the real economy instead of the financial markets. And, politicians should take competency tests.

So if Lee's book advances some actual progressive causes, which it does, one needs to separate out a totalitarian regime, including most likely rampant corruption, from some great ideas it appropriated from the West. Of, course all of these "lessons" from Lee begs the question, why do we have to look to China to return to our own sensible roots? But that question shouldn't' deny Lee the good intent of the book. I think it might be an interesting read, and I wouldn't have said that before the discussion here.

If you would post that Huffpo reference, I would appreciate it.

Your confusing my opposition

tmccarthy0 — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 15:30:21 +0000

In reply to Actually we did control the

Your confusing my opposition to our hegemony as some weird catch phrase of multiculturalism, which exposes the utter arrogance of Americans and how they/we envision their/our relationship with the world and that hasn't changed at all not since we were a British Colony!

The Chinese invented foundries and metal manufacturing long before the west came out of the dark ages. What would eventually become modern manufacturing really began in China well before the alleged birth of Christ. So maybe we should thank them for the industrial revolution and our standard of living. (I could go on, but I won't)

The prospect of alleviating

Michael Maiello — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 15:02:37 +0000

In reply to Actually we did control the

The prospect of alleviating third world poverty has been used as a cudgel against people who have been skeptical of "free trade" since the very beginning of the debate. But isn't the responsibility of the U.S. government to provide for rising living standards for its own citizens first? It's almost as if somebody looked at post WWII-1980 wage growth and said, "That's it for them. This far and no farther."

Which speaks to notions of cradle to grave wage work as a means of social control, among other things.

You wrote: "I think I

tmccarthy0 — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 14:53:52 +0000

In reply to I think I should have said,

You wrote:

"I think I should have said, how could we have allowed ourselves to be so taken advantage of?"

Exactly, but the people who took advantage of us are the people who convinced us as a nation that we don't; need to pay for anything ever, and those people are not the Chinese, those people would be your regular run of the mill American politician. Those folks, those politicians convinced Americans we didn't need to invest in our country any longer. We didn't keep our own infrastructure up-to-date, we didn't prepare for the inevitable total change from a manufacturing industrial economy to a hybrid economy, we didn't keep the cost of a college or technical education down thereby continually preparing ourselves for economic change, which is always inevitable. We didn't do any of that, and that doesn't happen to be the fault of the Chinese. We did it all to ourselves and instead of taking responsibility for what we did to ourselves and attempting to fix what is terribly wrong, why do that when we could do nothing and blame China!

I am not willing to go that far, I am very interested in Americans to accept some responsibility and to quit blaming others for the things we did to ourselves.

And then read this.

Things are changing, very much so there. I realize there are political prisoners, but as a person who loves Asia and China with my whole being, when I am there I am home, and I believe that if they do better we do better, I am going to continue to support the sharing of the wealth all over the world. They are the 99% too.

Actually we did control the

Saladin — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 14:44:53 +0000

In reply to I am going to quibble with

Actually we did control the technology that increases productivity which allowed them to escape poverty. We also served as the export markets which allowed them to acquire hard currency to buy the commodities needed to have a modern economy--you know oil, rubber, metals, and all that jazz.

We gave up our power. I fully agree that nobody has a right to dictate to someone how they should live, but that doesn't mean we are obliged to subsidize it either, or in the case of China fully encourage it while empowering the ruling party. Your politically correct outrage is as naive as it is ironic.

As to other claims, China's refusal to allow their currency to float did contribute excess liquid capital into the world economic system which contributed to the housing bubble. How much is not quite certain, but it is clear that it was significant.

Go ahead and feel good about your multiculturalism, I embrace that as well, but quite confusing its virtue with reality.

It seems to me that we've

Michael Maiello — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:45:00 +0000

In reply to On the more abstract issues

It seems to me that we've made a lot of advances in science, technology, medicine, and...public relations. Since Tiananmen Square, China has learned a lot. If what's going on in China isn't exactly Libya, that's probably by design. China's government can give a little in response to a local protest. It doesn't have the same fear as, say, Saddam Hussein had, where he couldn't even afford the weakness of having U.N. inspectors paying too many visits, lest his enemies sense vulnerabilities and pounce.

So, this isn't the Middle East and it's not exactly 1984 either.

But it does seem that Vaclav Havel, who I quote a bunch from above, has it right when he talks about "anonymous authority, in this case an abstract "people's rule" that doesn't respect the individual experiences, desires and humanity that are, effectively a part of nature. What he saw in Czechoslovakia was an attempt to do what China is attempting and he saw it has dangerously dehumanizing and, ultimately, against nature (not just human nature, but nature itself).

Of course, Havel was a dissident who would have been as jailed in China as he was jailed in his homeland. His story had the relatively happier ending of strong international support during his imprisonment and the ability to lead his country out after the fall of the USSR. A dissident in China now can't count on either. International support has devolved into "we gave a dissident a Nobel Prize and we're not going to say we're sorry but we also won't talk much more about it, please send more iPads" and, of course, China's government has learned how to avoid collapse by being selectively flexible, while so many other totalitarian states choose complete rigidity.

If the government in China is

Michael Maiello — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 11:15:22 +0000

In reply to We should have held a hard

If the government in China is representative of "core values" than why are so many political activists, artists and bloggers in jail there?