Li has cherry picked from the most respected of contexts in today's
corporate controlled world--central authority and economic
advancement--to build his argument. It's bordering on revisionism,
miraculously avoiding discussion about the countless lives China's
leaders have ruined or crushed in rejecting democracy. It boasts of
communist near-perfection by one party unity to accomplish democracy's
goals, yet avoids personal freedoms as relevant to and integral towards
the ingenuity that ensures a people's future.
Of course, ingenuity is not enough to ensure a future. If a nation's
leaders are corporate controlled puppets, as they are pretty much
everywhere now, then a grim outcome is inevitable within a one party
system or a democracy.
China has gained an envied admiration by adopting and multiplying
technological tools espoused by Western nations, yet the very steps it
took to achieve these economic successes could prove to be its fast
undoing if it doesn't quickly address the pollution, food and clean
water issues. But that's just the most visible surface threat to their
accomplishments. They are implementing sustainable methods, but they
must undo far too much, and with the privatization that has been
allowed--the pace will not be fast enough to get through the next decade.
I can't agree with Li about the one party unity being the likely reason
for success. First, as a nation in today's global trade, it must keep up
with technology and science to have any kind of economy. What choice did
they have but to conform, and upon doing so, take flight? That would
have happened with or without the central committee unity. Second, with
this essential 'winning' formula in play, add their vast available
labour resources. Third, throw in oppression and poverty with up being
the only one way to go, and you have a motivated work force.
India is growing economically, has the technology and the work force
numbers, but corruption is much higher. In the West, we only basically
have corruption as our biggest hindrance towards sustainability. Li
feels corruption is their biggest problem, politically. But I would say
it's more about ideology. As both Ray and Ed have mentioned, things can
be far from ideal once the worship of money is paramount. Both the
former USSR and China have fostered their geniuses, but have curbed the
freedom of choice that we consider human right for their entire
populations. That won't end in anything but revolution. Their leaders
are just as greedy as our own, and we know where ours are headed.
China's very strength is also its biggest problem. Over-population.
India, Russia, as well. It will certainly be our own; not because of a
lack of resources, but because greed will prevail over sustainability.
I was surprised that Li never brought up lack of 'religion' in their one
party system as a likely strength. Though many countries like Israel
seem to flourish in spite of it, or because of the unification it
possibly brings, North America has been rife with its setbacks because
of it. Or should that be: rife because of intolerance? Religion has
worked in some regions of S. America, but more as a social support
because of bad governance. Weighing these issues across the diverse
nations, I doubt one can really arrive at any kind of singular formula.
Also avoided was the one party failure in the USSR to arrive at
economic, democratic-like, success. It's back to China's vast labour
pool, and their expendable masses. Success measured by global standards
of technology and profit, and the dead are never counted.
Natalia Kuzmyn
On 17/07/2013 8:24 AM, Ray Harrell wrote:
Thanks for the recommendation on the book Ed. I'll look it up. Always
enjoy your "take" on things.
REH
*From:*futurework-boun...@lists.uwaterloo.ca
[mailto:futurework-boun...@lists.uwaterloo.ca] *On Behalf Of *Ed Weick
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 17, 2013 11:17 AM
*To:* RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
*Subject:* Re: [Futurework] important talk
Don't know quite how to respond to this. The guy talking about China
is confident and impressive, and undoubtedly China is now on a steady
rise while the US and Europe are flipping this way and that.
But then every country that has espoused a new way of seeing itself
politically and of organizing itself into something more ideal than it
was has exuded confidence and has had its clever people say good
things about it.
I'm reading a very interesting if somewhat depressing book right now.
It's "Bloodlands" by Timothy Snyder, a professor of history at Yale.
The book deals with the political and economic growth of Nazi Germany
and the nascent Soviet Union and how the ideology of each state, and
the conflict between them, affected the people that lived between
their respective boundaries - the Poles, the Ukrainians, the
Lithuanians, the people of the Balkans, etc. The conflict, based both
on ideology and the egotism of leaders like Hitler and Stalin and
their upper echelon followers, led to mass starvation, the shipment of
large numbers of people to remote prison camps (the gulag), the
creation of Jewish ghettos, and simply shooting large numbers of
people on the spot (among them my Polish grandfather).
Yes, China is growing and becoming a strong and wealthy country. But
one does have to recall events such as Mao's cultural revolution and
the continuing movement of large numbers of people from the
countryside to the toxic megacities that account for much of the
country's growth. And yes, China is well organized, but then so were
Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. For a country to be well organized
doesn't mean that its people are happy with the planning and
organizing they are being subjected to. One hears snippets here about
how unhappy some people are. One even hears about rebellion here and
there.
So it's nice to hear the guy talk about how good things are getting in
China. But it makes you wonder whether they really are that good.
Ed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:*Ray Harrell <mc...@nyc.rr.com <mailto:mc...@nyc.rr.com>>
*To:* 'Steve Kurtz' <kur...@ncf.ca <mailto:kur...@ncf.ca>>;
"RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION"
<futurework@lists.uwaterloo.ca <mailto:futurework@lists.uwaterloo.ca>>
*Sent:* Tuesday, July 16, 2013 7:04:11 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Futurework] important talk
I've watched this three times and thought a lot about it.
First of all, "don't fool with us, we have our culture we love
authority and always have. We are happy here." (I remember those
Soviets visiting our school and talking Soviet Agriculture and how
wonderful it was and how they would soon not need to buy our wheat.
Didn't happen. Although they did do a lot of wonderful educational
things, it was a mixed bag as Ed points out every so often.
Second: Chaos outside of an election is the best form of flexibility
as shown by the wild and destructive swings from Mao to the present.
He spoke of our hubris but this definition of flexible went beyond
hubris and into the absurd. Jihad maybe? Or Kublai black banner
foreign policy when he ran low on funds. Except the Spirits of the
Sea wouldn't cooperate and destroyed that "flexibile" approach.
Much as they did to the Spanish Armada.
Third: Once they've caught us then they have to replace our
creativity with their theft of ideas. I don't see new work coming
out of China although the science in space and stem cells escapes the
current nihilism of American business in relation to the two.
There is lots of amazing technique and virtuosity but the core
that creates an option to the problems at hand? There's always the
Three Rivers Dam.
As for culture? Yes, they have culture in spades and a long history
of creativity within the context of authority. The question is
whether once you have authority and discipline, what happens next?
Today they are trying on Western econo-idolatry. The religion of
money. How long before they discover the hollow core of that?
There's still Adam Smith's first masterpiece. They are however a
long way away from the concept of consensus that brings everyone along
and makes government struggle to NOT follow the easy way.
Ultimately this young man reminded me of the Soviet people sent out to
push their system and the counterpart in Radio America and those
lies. It's all a story and each person should be careful. It's a
mine field.
REH
*From:*Steve Kurtz [mailto:kur...@ncf.ca]
*Sent:* Sunday, July 14, 2013 4:01 PM
*To:* Mike Hollinshead; Ray Evans Harrell; Keith Hudson; ROY MADRON;
Kenn von Kaufmann; Tony Judge
*Subject:* important talk
The guy is excellent. Worth the 20 minutes. I prefer meritocracy, but
can't speak to its reality there.
http://www.ted.com/talks/eric_x_li_a_tale_of_two_political_systems.html
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
Futurework@lists.uwaterloo.ca <mailto:Futurework@lists.uwaterloo.ca>
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
Futurework@lists.uwaterloo.ca
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
Futurework@lists.uwaterloo.ca
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
