COMMENTS:
With a population of 1.3 billion people and exponentially more cellphone calls, e-mails, text messages, web interactions, etc., I don't see how they can hope to maintain control.
IMO, the only question will be -- Do they embrace the change and become part of it, or do they fight it and face an eventual fall into irrelevancy.
well they are actually becoming less free daily. surely you read and hear the news reports. there are at least half a dozed groups in the usa that are trying to show the world that as their market opens up (supposedly), the government becomes more heavy-handed. you know this already though.
Kev: Yup. But I don't believe they'll be able to maintain that.
^ well then there you have it. of course they will cathexis. those in the know realize that globally, governments are cracking down, tightening control. china is best at doing that, so they're ahead of the game. they will maintain it and pull even tighter.
Kev: Once you have 1.3 billion people who get a taste of 'the other life,' it will take one heck of an effort to coerce them into obedience, IMO.
But ... this is a ballot, so I respect your entry -- not my intention to persuade anyone one way or another (I just got carried away with a reflexive response). 
They won't change. Why should they? It works for them. Their economy is growing by leaps and bounds.
Cathexis, It is a bit surprising that you think they will have to improvements in freedoms considering that you think the US is becoming a neo-fascist police state. China already has one. It is easier to keep one in place than to implement a new one where people are relatively free.
and i'm telling you that based on what i've heard, from people in a position to know, they (the prc government) have instituted a nice and warm and fuzzy pr campaign that outwardly looks like they are opening up. actions tell a different story. in addition, you have to understand that they know that it is impossible to employ and feed all those people. think about this -- their work force is close to 750 million people and they have an economy of about $8.3 trillion. they have about 9% growth annually. the united states has rougly a $12.4 trillion economy and a work force of about 150 million (maybe a bit higher). do the math.
in order for china to have jobs and food and energy for its own country, their economy would in effect, have to be at minimum $36 trillion. so do you think they will actually allow freedom? no. once they "get a taste" and realize that is all they will get, they will quickly realize that they will never enjoy true freedom. the government of china is not about to losed the choke hold. why do you think they are working with yahoo, google and microsoft to implement tight restrictions and fitlers?
FF: The diff, IMO, is that this China stuff is mere speculation -- I make no claim to have seen anything that tangibly indicates any trend as I mildly predict. The people are used to authoritarian rule, but now get a taste of what alternatives are. I think it may have an effect.
The US situation ... it isn't idle speculation. I am looking at actions happening right now. We are the opposite end of teh sspectrum: A society used to freedoms and grown complacent that we will always have them.
Kev: I agree. And it may well be that I give them too much credit to read what I perceive the 'handwriting on the wall.' It may well be that they will contineu to attempt to clamp down to the bitter end.
In which case, I'd change my answer to #2: They'll gradually lose power as people rebel.
FF: Make no mistake ... The *current* states are that China is authoritarian and the US is more 'free.'
Do not confuse 'current' with 'trends.'
uhm.... ok.... I don't quite get how an authoritarian government will become more free while a free country will become more authoritarian. IF more "exponentially more cellphone calls, e-mails, text messages, web interactions, etc." occurs (as is the case in the US), how will freedom lessen in the US, but gain in China? I'm missing something obviously. This apparent inevitable movement to freedom sounds sort of neo-con in theory at least.
^ "uhm.... ok.... I don't quite get how an authoritarian government will become more free while a free country will become more authoritarian. "
it won't. the anti-bush brigade, of which i am one, are paranoid to the point of having a persecution complex. its absurd -- they keep forgetting that the man leaves office in what, like 2 years? its absurd to maintain we are becoming more authoritarian and that they are becoming less. ridiculous beyond belief, particularly since we know first hand that totalitarian nations never last. now bush, yeah, he's a moron and has delusions of grandeur and power, but long-term? no.
There's a tidal wave headed towards Beijing, and everyone in China knows it except for the idiots *in* Beijing.
The world has become too small for nations to continue to oppress their people. Transportation and communication have shrunk our world down to the point where we all intersect somewhere.
Even places like North Korea where the government controls just about everything, it is inevitable that ideas find their way there.
We have discovered that ideas have a life of their own and seem to stand outside of time and space until their time has come.
Freedom's time is now and forever.
It might very well be that China's growing middle class and booming economy will lead to it's democratization.The people have seen what capitalism has to offer and they don't want to go back to the poverty of communism.The Soviet Union has fallen and so will China.
It seems to me that China is in a period of transition, and it is not yet clear what role they wish to play on the international stage. They may prove to be problematic.
However, there is also a good chance that they will improve. The boom in South Korea and Taiwan's economies and the rise of bourgoisie middle-classes did help in democracy movements. It seems that when the masses have the basics of life, that is food, shelter, etc they begin to demand more things, such as freedoms. Living standards are rising in China.
Will China become a democracy? The Taiwan model indicates it is a possibility. But the Singapore model on the other hand indicates that capitalism and democracy do not necessarily go hand in hand. China may become 'more free' but probably not democratic, they may just go toward 'soft authoritarianism.'
So how should the developed world respond to this? Isolating China does not seem the good thing to do. Isolating a dictatorship usually leaves its citizens more weakened. Whereas engaging China to sensible extents will mean a rise in living standards and increased chances for democracy. I don't think that the students of 1989 protests had strong enough support from the rest of the Chinese at that point in time. A future movement might have a wider involvement as the middle class has expanded since then, more people have travelled to the Free World. But then again, one should not assume too much as a result of this.
But containment of China may be necessary if they do decide to become more problematic to the region. That is not so clear yet, as I mentioned already they are in a phase of transition at the moment. It is not clear what will happen internally in China in the next few decades.
Corrupt & Socrates: Good points, thanks!
some people on this ballot appear to be running for some kind of office.  freedom's time is now and forever. who's your speech writer?
|
