Hacker News Reader

Comment by forinti | Hacker News Reader

I'm afraid you are really wrong.

The dictatorships in Latin America had economic progress, but a lot of problems were simply ignored and ended up been tackled in the 80s with a lot of pain.

Corruption was rampant but people didn't know about it because it simply didn't show up in the press. People seem to think it magically appeared overnight when the military left power.

A lot of money was ill-spent and huge debts were made which aren't well explained.

There were megaprojects, just as China has now, but simple things like sanitation, housing, and education were ignored. Urban centres grew with little or no planning, resulting in the chaos we now have.

So I'm afraid you can't simply take away accountability and hope for the best.

View on HN

I am not advocating dictatorship or one-man rule. I am advocating a planned economy and a burocratic system at the top, where a cadre of leaders plan and decide how progress should happen. Be clear on that - single leader dictatorships are the worst form of government. China does not have that anymore and has not had it for a long time.

China has an elite class. Do you know how hard it is to get into the communist party? Do you know you have to be REALLY good to be invited in. The party selects intelligent and competent people to enter the leadership class a.k.a, the party.

"Do you know how hard it is to get into the communist party? "

It doesn't matter. You still get killed or tortured and imprisoned if you think the "elite leadership" is wrong and express your opinion. An "elite" gang of thugs is still a gang of thugs, only more dangerous than your usual garden variety hoodlum.

I suspect the Mafia is also "Invite Only" as is Al Quaeda. That doesn't make them desirable arbiters of your life and happiness.

There are no one-man dictatorships. Dictators always have the support of a lot of people.

When the military took power in Brazil in 1964, there was celebration in the streets. In the rich part of town, of course.

Your vision of an 'enlightened elite' is bit scary.

And you don't think that the United States has a similar elite? Successful societies have a leadership class that is based of some type of non-hereditary merit : for example wealth, education or intelligence. A lot of unsuccessful societies happen when power is seized by someone who does not come from this leadership class.

America has its leadership colleges and power families, same as france and a lot of western countries. You don't call it a political party, but it is.

Look at singapore, malaysia, botswana - what do they have in common in terms of leadership? What has been the result?

It's easy to accept what they tell you about democracy without really thinking about it. But actually consider the REAL systems of successful societies. They are not democratic.

"America has its leadership colleges and power families, same as france and a lot of western countries. You don't call it a political party, but it is."

You have strange definitions of "political party" ;-).

"Look at singapore, malaysia, botswana - what do they have in common in terms of leadership? "

Are you trolling? All of these leaders are elected in democratic elections. Singapore is a somewhat borderline case and comes closest to a dictatorship in terms of restrictions on citizens, but it is still a long way away from the Communist dictatorship of China. I doubt Singaporeans are regularly killed for political dissent.

No one argues against having good leaders (educated, visionary etc) as long as the governed people can decide what exactly is "good leadership", hold their leaders accountable and remove them from power peacefully if they think the leadership is corrupt/inefffective etc. For this you need the ability for a citizen to express an opinion without fear of being killed or imprisoned.

I dare you to remove Obama. I dare you and a thousand of your friends to remove Obama. You can't. Your voice is useless. In the elite system, let's say there are 1000 people who belong to this elite class. If 10 of them start agitating against the leader, then their problem will immediately be heard. Each of those 1000 people has a circle of people around then, the second class of elites, who can get a message to them. In this system, if you want to lead, you only need to get into the upper circle, you don't need to do the completely impossible step of being elected.

If chinese leadership were corrupt, then they will be immediately removed by the large number of intelligent people who are in the upper part of the party.

Those countries I listed all have a similar system, and power is handed from one member of this elite ruling class to the next - strangers or opposition don't jump in and take over power. Yes, there is democracy, but there is no chance of someone not in the system getting into the class.

Yes, what I'm advocating here is the complete opposite of everything you have been brought up to believe - but the difference between me and you is that I think about even the things you are supposed to accept. Democracy is good - whoever would think to question that? You should. Question everything, even the things you think are obvious.

To truly understand, you need to believe in what is wrong for a while. Only then can you understand both extremes of force and see where the truth lies.

"To truly understand, you need to believe in what is wrong for a while."

Ahh Belief preceeds understanding. First believe then understand. Sounds like some religious cult. I have nothing more to say to you sir. Good Day!

This is the problem with modern thinking. You don't realise that in order to know your enemy, you have to be your enemy.

I could see your point of view for the most part until this post. You think there are some people fated to be in the "leading" class and we need to just let them lead?

Personally, I question the need for government at all, but above all I find one must be practical. What works... works. I think a real, advanced anarchist system has never been allowed to be tried (for obvious reasons) but without testing it I'm not convinced it couldn't work.

I certainly don't approve of a people who have, frankly, produced a pretty awful system condemning someone else who also has an awful system (which has a different set of plus and minus points).

You make the Communist party sound as if it's some super-elite club. It's not. My girlfriend's a member and, while she's intelligent and well-educated, she didn't have to do a whole lot to get in. I suspect a decent education is enough.

Nor does being a member of the party suddenly make you a member of the "leadership class". For her, it's like a club membership, she pays some small dues every year and in return she can put it on her resume when she wants to. It also helped her avoid some prereqs in college. I guess if she wanted to dig further and start attending meetings regularly she could use it for networking.

In short, being in the party != being a member of the ruling oligarchy which calls the shots here. If you want to do that, marry into the family of someone who has a good government post.

Obviously being in the party does not mean you are in the ruling class. But to be in the ruling class, you have to be part of the party, and the criteria to get in the party will already filter out a lot of the idiots that have destroyed so many countries.

The Chinese planned economy is a giant bubble waiting to burst and I assure you, when it does, it won't be pretty :-(

Reply on news.ycombinator.com