The interests and preferences of the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the men and the women and the different classes will often be in conflict with each other and it is important that they be seen to be resolved in justice and in the national interest.
Nationalism is about governing in the national interest and this means a one-party state taking the position of final authority in a republic since no one's family, not even the last emperor of China's, is in any way a big enough pool of political talent from which to recruit the next national leader.
15 comments:
you are closer to capturing the essence of modern China’s leadership, except: 1, we hardly emphasize nationalism if nationalism’s definition is strictly used; 2, we are not so-called one-party state
sorry, you are mistaken. China is the polar opposite of a democracy, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself otherwise. China has certainly adopted a form of Western capitalism, with great success. But it is under single-state authoritarian rule.
I think you may be confusing "socialism" with "collectivism".
https://wikidiff.com/socialism/collectivism
Westerners have been demonising nationalism since WW2 because Hitler and Mussolini identified themselves with nationalism.
If nationalism means government is in the national interest, it would appear that neither Hitler nor Mussolini understood the concept. German and Italian expansionism was the cause of war and all empires are acquired by war, including the Spanish, British and American global empires.
Perhaps It would be more accurate to say that the failure of German and Italian nationalism was a failure of diplomacy or failure to recognise the limitations of their own armed forces as well as the mistaken expectation that Britain would be reasonable about Germany moving around in its own backyard.
China is a democracy in the early Roman sense where only the patrician class has a vote. That is a very limited form of democracy where the majority of people have no franchise. This form of government is called an Oligarchy. A key feature of Oligarchy is that laws are for the ruled class, and those rules are not designed to protect the rights of an individual, but to enforce the right of the government to rule. There is no right to protest, or to criticize. To the contrary, these forms of expression are prohibited and often are severely punished.
Your description reminds me of the electoral college.
whatever happens in the US has far reaching affects.
The difference with the electoral college is that the representatives select the electors, and those representatives are all elected from the general population. The electors, by custom, follow the popular vote of the state. Power of office is sourced from the people, so it seems to me that your analogy is a bit on the weak side.
@Dr H
Isn't socialism a form of collectivism? I am reminded of the collectivisation imposed by the Soviets on their farmers.
The proof of my statement? What happened in Hong Kong? Protesters of imposed new laws were arrested; outspoken critics were arrested and will now be imprisoned. Your article is an example of propaganda putting a shiny coat of paint on a rusty machine. It may appear to be a better machine, but the rust is still there underneath.
Has China as a country done better economically? Without a doubt. Are the people on average doing better? Depends on how you define better I suppose. Is living in better surroundings but in fear of being reported and prosecuted for a thought crime better. Not in my opinion it's not.
People unused to abstract and legalistic reasoning often make what are called category errors when they confuse one idea with another sharing similar characteristics. It is even more confusing when the government changes the meaning of important words like marriage in a background of degeneracy, cowardice, moral corruption, effeminacy and neurosis.
@DN There are thoughtcrimes in the West.
"China is rationally governed, the West is not. The people of China trust their government, Westerners think their governments are mad, silly or evil."
As always, you are a fish out of water. If you think so poorly of the West: MOVE! The UK is not going to change to accommodate your opinions and peccadillos. Nobody cares what you think!
Why not migrate to China and see how you like it?
Can you not think of a counter-argument to my arguments or a way of refuting or rebutting them other than telling me to leave the West? There are plenty of Westerners living and working in China. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1XG7bJnYqta_ezr12WZp7w is the YouTube channel of Westerners who live in China.
China is a people's democratic dictatorship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_democratic_dictatorship
As long as the Chinese are happy and don't have another civil war as the Americans are about to or start another World War, why not let them live as they please, democracy or dictatorship? It seems whatever the West say about their government, the Chinese are very happy with it.
http://www.china.org.cn/china/2020-07/17/content_76281590.htm
Have you ever visited China?
"Can you not think of a counter-argument to my arguments or a way of refuting or rebutting them other than telling me to leave the West?"
I can, but I can't be bothered. You have not expressed any ideas that interest or engage me. To me, your ideas are either naive or wrong, but you are not going to be moved. You are a contrarian, and I wonder whether you are being disingenuous.
"China is a people's democratic dictatorship."
And you buy this?
"It seems whatever the West say about their government, the Chinese are very happy with it. "
Do you have a clue what is happening in the South Pacific region? Do you have a clue about China's plans for global domination?
In fact, do you have a clue?
I'll leave you in your bubble. I have other things to do.
But you are sufficiently engaged with my ideas to insult me and demand that I leave the West every time I make a post! I am not being disingenuous. I really think Western malaise is linked to it being a matriarchy. I have the solution so I stay here to promote it. You are one of many supposedly educated Westerners unable to answer my questions or have a rational discussion about it. I will be content to leave once you find me someone of sufficient moral and intellectual authority to tell me how and why anything I have said is untrue, illogical or immoral.
"I really think Western malaise is linked to it being a matriarchy."
You have not presented any rationale or evidence for this "thought".
Your country, the UK, is definitely not a matriarchy. In fact, patriarchy remains the dominant model across the world, not only the West.
https://resources.collins.co.uk/free/sociology.pdf#:~:text=Despite%20the%20rise%20of%20feminism%20and%20a%20move,power%20is%20held%20in%20the%20hands%20of%20men.
And your definition of "malaise" seems to centre on non-traditional family set-ups. But there is no evidence for this connection.
"I have the solution so I stay here to promote it."
You don't have a solution. You don't even have a problem.
"You are one of many supposedly educated Westerners unable to answer my questions or have a rational discussion about it."
I am not "supposedly educated", I AM educated. I am telling you that I do not find your ideas worthy or examination.
"I will be content to leave once you find me someone of sufficient moral and intellectual authority to tell me how and why anything I have said is untrue, illogical or immoral."
Nobody is going to be able to disabuse you of your unfounded fears and beliefs. I suspect your neediness is deep.
My advice to you is to try to enjoy the rights, freedoms and lifestyle you enjoy in the UK. Stop finding fault. Stop whingeing. Be grateful for what you have.
And if you can't, move! Because, quite frankly, I think you have next-to-zero chance of convincing Brits and other Westerners to adopt some variation of Islam.
You are a matriarchy if all men are lower in status than the unmarried mother and this was established in 1974 when Keith Joseph, a Jewish Baronet, had to apologise for criticising the morals of unmarried mothers and saying that "our human stock is being threatened" by the dysgenics of widespread illegitimacy. It was still not enough to save his career, and he had to make way for Margaret Thatcher to become leader of the Conservative Party.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/wintour-and-watt/2010/nov/25/conservatives-davidcameron
There is a pair of unmarried parents currently residing in Downing Street and the Conservative British Prime Minister refuses to say how many illegitimate offspring he has.
The Prime Minister of New Zealand is an unmarried mother.
Trump has never dared criticise the morals of unmarried mothers either.
The world's most powerful man of the world's greatest superpower is too afraid to criticise the morals of unmarried mothers whose illegitimate offspring are recruited by the statue topplers of BLM.
The West is a matriarchy all right.
It is interesting that you think Intersectional Feminism is enough to be the new moral system of the West. Are you sure this is willingly accepted or universally acknowledged?
You may think you are educated, but all you have done is tell me to shut up and leave the West every time I point out that the West has no functioning moral system that supports marriage and family values.
It seems as a feminist you do want to destroy the patriarchy and replace it with the Intersectional Feminism of BLM. Is that right?
What do you mean that I don't even have a problem?
Post a Comment