Basically for those who are interested in the background of the quote, Deng arose to power at the end of the Cultural Revolution, at the height of Chinese communism ideology when the government was so communist that they broke away from the Soviet's and accused of USSR as "revisionist"; destroyed all of the Buddhist temples in China as "backwards and Confucius," imprisoned the sons and daughters of former capitalists (because there were no current one's left) for being "Western corrupution," and stripped intellectual's of their post in Universities and forced them to "country-side re-education camps" for being "radical leftists against communism." Before he rose to power, Deng himself was denounced and stripped of his political post, and sent down for "re-education."
In little as four or five years, in that kind of environment, Deng has reformed the former Chinese market-command economy to become more capitalistic. Liberalized the political and free-speech in China, that allowed for media/film/journalism criticize the Chinese Communist party which eventually led to the Tienanmen Incident. Deng, confronted tremendous criticism and resistance from the hardliners of the Community party when he tried enact his reform. He used this quote about "black cat" or "white cat" in a speech he delivered to the political cadres to persuade them to be a bit more pragmatic and less ideological about their communism, after 43 million people have died from Great Leap Forward and the Culture Revolution. It was also Deng who eventually issued the order to strike down the student protesters in Tienanmen.
This ambivalent character of Deng, of balancing liberalization versus stability has become a hallmark quality of the Chinese government. See how the Chinese government encourages citizens towards private asset ownership and entrepreneurship, but not towards democratic representation. See how the Chinese government agrees in principle to a Korea/Iran nuke disarmament, but they are more so wary of the stability of Korea/Iran region in the event of a international escalation - that they block the UN Security Council sanctions. Whether the current Chinese/Russian model of free markets but central strong political oligarchy without an ideological emphasis, versus the American model of free markets and free democracy with a strong ideology (leader of the free world), the viability of either models remains to be seem.
I think it's safe to say that any model which encourages individual freedoms would be superior. And the reason relates to my beliefs in self-education vs school education. It's more efficient if people do what they want. So even an oligarchy with an emphasis on practical results will still be less efficient than individual people managing themselves freely.
I actually completely agree with this, but regarding your first sentence:
> I think it's safe to say that any model which encourages individual freedoms would be superior.
I agree with this, too, but neither of the two models being discussed here actually does this. Perhaps the question, then, is which of the two models does a relatively better job, and the answer is not so obvious. There are some who would argue that the Chinese model does a better job of it, and they are not completely nuts.
Edit: I wanted to add that your post deserves praise, because you have made an essential connection that few people have. It is more efficient when people do what they want, this does indeed apply to schools/education as well as large-scale economic organization, and in no way is this a coincidence!
What does China have right now? Authoritarian style government. It's not near pure communism, just as America is not near pure capitalism. But the main difference between China and America is that China is authoritarian and America (and all the developed world) is democratic.
I agree mob rule is bad. Can democracy work for China? Maybe. Democracy depends on the population to be educated in order to work ideally. Obviously 40 years ago many Chinese were uneducated and poor. Today many are still poor, but there is a growing middle class. More people are educated now and that number is continuously increasing. And as evident in the development of a society: as the standard of living and education of the population rises, they tend to convert to democracy. This is probably why all developed nations are democratic.
Obviously uneducated poor populations cannot govern themselves. One bad idea from one uneducated person will be echoed by 100 uneducated if democratic rule would take place. Therefore it is up to the few in that society who are educated to take charge. So in such situations an authoritarian style may be more effective. But when there is less of an education gap, it not only becomes more fair to adopt a democratic process, but more effective since there is inherent risk in granting power to select few in a more equal society. Of course the same risk is present in a society with a large education gap, but the benefits of having the smart making the decisions outweighs that risk. In the United States there is less of an education gap and people are more equal. Therefore the risk in having the smartest and best govern is not worth the fewer benefits (because an authoritarian regime can definitely be more effective if done right than a slow democratic system).
The risk I am talking about is of course having someone corrupt step into power. Democracy is slow and ineffective by design for this very reason.
Establishing country is analogous to a startup (I love startup analogies). You start with a startup and few people have complete and utter control. These few people mean less checks on bad decisions. Why? Because if it fails, there is very little to lose, and if it succeeds, very much to gain. This is analogous to the authoritarian phase of a society where it is much more ideal to take big risks since everyone's life is already shit (excuse my language). Of course once your company hits it big and has lots more to lose if a bad decision is made, your company has to be very careful. This is analogous to the democratic phase of a society where incremental benefits in management or efficiency no longer outweigh the risks which could topple the established welfare of said society/company.
So the question now is what stage is China at? Are the citizens of China smart enough to make their own decisions now?
The problem is that "democratic" is not the opposite of "authoritarian". China and the US both have authoritarian governments, although they do of course differ in certain ways.
> And as evident in the development of a society: as the standard of living and education of the population rises, they tend to convert to democracy. This is probably why all developed nations are democratic.
I don't think this is what has happened at all. Your suggestion that
> the few in that society who are educated...take charge
is not too far off from describing the strategy of the ruling class in most modern democracies. Take the US, for example. It is run by a massive, permanent bureaucracy. In practice, a democracy always grants power to a select few; democracy is inherently unequal in this sense.
> Democracy is slow and ineffective by design for this very reason.
The key question when it comes to political systems is, who is making the decisions? Let's take education, a subject I think we're both interested in.
In Country A, the decision of how a person is to be educated is made by a large, government bureaucracy, supposedly filled with experts. The decision is not made by the person in question or even his/her parents. They have no choice but to pay for the government schools.
Meanwhile, in Country B, a student and/or his/her parents have full control over their own education and what is spent on it. In this case, they are making the decisions.
I would call Country A "authoritarian" and Country B "free". My question is, which is the US, and which is China?
Sorry bad choice of word I guess. What I meant is that China's government is authoritarian but it is also closed, whereas the US government, although it has authority, it is responsible to the people, even though indirectly.
> is not too far off from describing the strategy of the ruling class in most modern democracies.
The ruling class in modern democracy is composed of those naturally fit to rule. There is nothing wrong with that in my opinion. So basically what I'm saying in that when a society advances and more people are educated, there are enough people to fill in that ruling class naturally.
> In practice, a democracy always grants power to a select few; democracy is inherently unequal in this sense.
Democracy's advantage is not in equality, but in allowing those fit to have more, have more, and those fit to rule, to rule. Those fit to rule would,on average, rule better than constantly selecting random small group of people to rule.
As for your education point, China has restrictions on information, and it has a similar style of education as the US, but with an even more mechanistic approach.
So while the education system in US is not ideal, the one in China is less ideal, but in the US you at least have freedom of information, which permits and promotes anyone to self educate if he or she wants to.
Every government answers to the people in some sense, because no government really wants all of its people to be against it. That would cause problems. This is one reason both the Chinese and US governments expend so many resources on propagandizing their populations.
> The ruling class in modern democracy is composed of those naturally fit to rule. There is nothing wrong with that in my opinion. So basically what I'm saying in that when a society advances and more people are educated, there are enough people to fill in that ruling class naturally.
I have to disagree with you here. As you pointed out, it's more efficient when people are generally left to do as they wish, including in the area of education, for example. Yet, the ruling classes in both countries have decided against this and are enforcing their views. In fact, your idea, fully applied, precludes the existence of a ruling class.
> Democracy's advantage is not in equality, but in allowing those fit to have more, have more, and those fit to rule, to rule. Those fit to rule would,on average, rule better than constantly selecting random small group of people to rule.
This paragraph would honestly make more sense if you replaced "democracy" with "aristocracy". In fact, many proponents of aristocracy make essentially the same argument you just did.
> So while the education system in US is not ideal, the one in China is less ideal,
I agree, China's education system is even worse. But my main point is that we're talking about two bad options now, not one good option and one bad option.
For your second point, I have to say while the US has a formalized education system, the very concept of freedom of speech information is freely accesible and propogated outside of the education system, independent of government control. Compare this to China where the government has the final say on information on top of control of he education system. Also not everyone has to attend government schools in he US. So ultimately in the US you definitely have more freedoms in terms of doing what you want.
For the third paragraph, I am not talking about rule based on hereditary titles or class. In fact I am talking about the exact opposite. The US system promotes a smart business man to run a business because he will have the best practical results, and a smart person to run a state, presidency, etc. This is what I mean those fit to rule will rule. The democratic process naturally weeds out those who suck so that those deserving, by merit, will come out on top.
In terms of efficiency, the American system may not be that great, but it is stable, and this stability means any attempt to radically improve it's system will be tough since there is always the risk it could fail miserably. Democracy is the stage for when people are comfortable, and stability is needed.
Obviously the education system needs reform and more freedom, but I think democracy is heading in the right direction.
This has already happened to a greater degree than most people realize. "Separation of powers" has been a complete failure. Just take the present time as an example. All three branches are currently controlled by the same faction.
> So ultimately in the US you definitely have more freedoms in terms of doing what you want.
I agree, but it is not very difficult to beat China in this respect.
> The democratic process naturally weeds out those who suck so that those deserving, by merit, will come out on top.
This is not what actually happens. In practice, the US is an oligarchy.
> Obviously the education system needs reform and more freedom, but I think democracy is heading in the right direction.
Unfortunately it isn't heading in the right direction at all. Parents in many states are having to fight government officials just for the ability to opt out of the govt. school system. Govts. are trying to make it harder and harder to do this. If you look at who is actually causing all of this, democracy has to take the blame.
In practice, the US is an oligarchy
Let's review the last 30 years or so of U.S. political history, shall we?
We had a president that was tossed out of office by his own party when he covered up a political crime. We had a peanut farmer with little political clout become president. We had an actor who was on a TV show with a monkey become president. We had another president impeached for lying in court. During this same time, we've had expansionist foreign policies, realistic policies, conservative policies. We've had all sorts of financial policies. Our court system has swung both left and right.
I'm not arguing that there isn't a ruling class of bureaucrats and rich politicians in key roles, but the government has effectively changed up policies, executives, and legal theory in surprisingly quick order.
With all due respect, China just doesn't compare here at all. They're great people and all, but if they have that kind of flexibility in governance I haven't seen it.
The office of President and the scope of presidential power have changed little even as the person holding the office has changed. Foreign policy has not changed as much as it seems, either. The US has been consistently running an empire for decades now. Take a look at what the State Dept. does. The financial system is a particularly bad example, as core financial policies have not changed at all.
For whatever reason, you're focusing on flexibility in governance, but are you really suggesting the Chinese government has been less flexible than the US on policy changes in the last 30 years? If there is any giant government that has been making rather sudden and extreme changes in short order, for better or worse, it's China's.
That's all you got?
The neat thing about such arguments about systems is: time will tell. When China is at 250 years with the same system, we can compare notes! (grin). But throwing away each others' points is not exactly a good way to continue a conversation. I'm of the opinion that real changes occurred, in all areas of policy. You are not. No amount of my explaining the changes is going to convince you, I'm afraid. You already know what you believe and no amount of discussion is going to persuade you otherwise.
Perhaps we can agree to disagree. I'm not going to play advocate of everything the U.S. does, and if you want to play that role for China you would be a fool as well (which I hope not).
Meanwhile I'll work on "expanding my vision." I commented because I thought you might help in this area. It appears not, though.
I'm not sure if you thought I was advocating everything that China does, or that I was somehow taking China's side in a US vs. China debate. That wouldn't be the case at all. If you read my other posts in this thread, I criticize both the US and China.
I'm also not sure if I misunderstood what you said about flexibility of governance. Whether or not you support the changes, I don't see how the Chinese government can be seen to have changed policies less in the entire Deng era than the US in the same time period.
You were having a conversation with a lot of hidden assumptions and definitions that were not clear to me -- to me, that's "out there". I was unable to gather anything useful from your stream, and that always interests me. It's a chance to either prove or disprove my own assumptions and definitions.
If you say things are not big, and I provide examples of where they are big, and then you throw away my examples, we're done. I can't well argue with myself, and unless you put forward a working definition of what "big" is we don't have anywhere to go.
I see the change in China as very incremental, done under duress, and done to the least amount possible in order to maintain control. Perhaps that's uncharitable of me but that's my current viewpoint. In the U.S., on the other hand, we seem willing and able to make change on a whim. We get tired of one set of philosophies and switch off to another every so often.
Now you can certainly argue that the underlying drivers of the U.S/, commercialism, haven't changed any, and that this lack of change means an underlying common theme in governance. But I think that begins to dilute the conversation so much as to make it meaningless -- and once again, you have me arguing with myself.
What was the last change in the US approaching this magnitude? Possibly the New Deal, but even that is quite a stretch. It does not really compare to going from the deadly Great Leap Forward (20-43 million dead, 53% poverty rate under Mao) to the current corporatism (around 6% poverty rate) in less than half a century.
That being said, I'm not sure if or why you're using flexibility in governance as a metric for good government. The government having the ability to change policies quickly is not necessarily a good thing all the time. It seems to me the actual policies themselves matter more.
Not at all.
Look at it this way: what do you want, to be able to get the answer exactly right the first time, or to have a bunch of iterations optimizing each time?
Societies are complex chaotic systems. There probably is no "right" answer. Instead, it's important for there to be a dance between policy and marketplace. The dance is much more important than the policy itself. [insert long economics discussion here]
I think you are disregarding johnny's points and assuming he's a brick wall. Take a minute and make sure that you are not doing to Johnny what you think he is doing to you.
I don't think this is true. You referring to the fact that the democrats have complete control is not good enough of an example of one faction controlling everything. The idea of separation of the government with three branches is not necessarily to have 3 branches controlled by different parties, but the idea of having three separate entities that do not report to a single point. That's what the separation of powers intends with the three branches of government. That being said the Democratic party is heavily factioned itself. It's not a very unified entity, especially when compared to the Communist party of China, and this is mostly because the representatives report directly to their constituents. If they piss off their constituents, most of them can easily lose their seats. So to say that the government is controlled by one faction right now is misleading since the Democratic party is huge, and represents about 50% of the population.
> This is not what actually happens. In practice, the US is an oligarchy. As I said before, the representatives report directly to the constituents. So in practice it may seem like an oligarchy because a selected few are given the power to govern, but this is actually a republican type of government. It's necessary for this to happen because having every issue directly voted on would be super inefficient. The representatives that have power do not actually have as much power as you think because of their responsibilities to their constituents. In China, I'm pretty sure the communist party officials have final say no matter what.
> Unfortunately it isn't heading in the right direction at all. Parents in many states are having to fight government officials just for the ability to opt out of the govt. school system. Govts. are trying to make it harder and harder to do this. If you look at who is actually causing all of this, democracy has to take the blame.
Even if this is true, like I said before, the fundamentals of the US system is freedom of speech and democracy. Therefore you will always have the right to pursue an education independent of the government, even if it means doing it on top of government mandated education. So this makes the issue of the school system moot with respect to the style of government. The education system may be going the wrong way, but why is it because of democracy? Freedom of speech/individualism certainly isn't pushing it that way, right? I think the problem with the school system is actually a whole other issue not related to the American democracy/individual freedom. China on the other hand, has a governing style based on oligarchical manipulation of the population. Manipulation will always result in something unnatural, such as the restriction of speech and information. That in turn means no freedom to pursue education as one wishes. So in essence the Democratic method does not force the bad education system, while the Chinese method fundamentally will oppose freedom of education as it will eventually, if not already, conflict with the interests of the oligarchy.
To summarize my points: If your issue is the education, the American style of government does not necessarily promote the current system of education we have. It may oppose a radical change to the education system, but that is simply because the government is designed to resist unnecessary radical changes. China on the other hand has a style of government that will definitely not allow the freedom of education you and I both love.
> So in practice it may seem like an oligarchy
If we look at the actual functioning of government (by which I don't mean just the elected representatives), most officials and bureaucrats are not significantly affected by any one election. There is a de facto permanent government, and there are clear patterns in the selection and activity of these officials.
> freedom of speech and democracy
The problem is that freedom/individualism is at odds with democracy. Most Western democracies do not have freedom of speech, again for democratic reasons. The US is an exception here, probably because of the prominent placement and unambiguous language of the First Amendment and the acceptance of freedom of speech as an American tradition.
> The education system may be going the wrong way, but why is it because of democracy?
Because the education system is run and managed by the permanent govt. mentioned above. They admit to wanting increased schooling and increased control. (Universal govt. schooling was a democratic idea in the first place.) Notice they have also come up with "scientific" justifications for this.
> China on the other hand, has a governing style based on oligarchical manipulation of the population.
So does the US. You can verify this by, for example, looking at the typical state-mandated school curriculum.
> So in essence the Democratic method does not force the bad education system, while the Chinese method fundamentally will oppose freedom of education as it will eventually, if not already, conflict with the interests of the oligarchy.
Your description of China's method applies to the US as well. The democratic method does indeed force the bad education system; as I mentioned earlier, it is a democratic (small d) idea to have the government attempt to school everybody.
China...has a style of government that will definitely not allow the freedom of education you and I both love.
I agree, but again, this applies to the US as well.
I don't know enough about China to say it's "A", I can assume it is, but I could be very wrong.
legal credentialing requirements in Texas at the time were almost non existent so we didn't have to worry about that, my parents were considered pretty radical by peers back when we started, because homeschooling wasn't fleshed out nor well received at the time.
I still remember my parents not letting us go out mid-day by ourselves due to them not wanting everyone thinking we were just a bunch of hoodlums skipping school. Instead we got invaluable experience working at the family business.
Edit: No, the above doesn't fall under the: "You don't have an option avoiding legal credentialing", because I don't want people who are under qualified working in the nuclear industry, but the fact stands the opportunity in the MOST regulated field in our nation, has entrance paths for those who did not get an engineering degree formally.
So there is a larger level of freedom than you make it out to be. The biggest regulator is the taxes. I don't have any formal credentials and I'm not finding any roadblocks keeping me from a greater quality of life or making millions.
Technically it does, but I do agree that it is more open than many other careers. And yes, there are plenty of options still left. But some careers are completely shut off to you if you do not go through govt.-approved schools. That is the key.
Are you saying the confidence we give doctors based on their years of studying and research just might be too much faith in the Government standard? Interesting question that brings up as well, how do we accurately gauge a persons skill in a profession like this if we were to try to "free" up the institutional thought process? Maybe an apprentice/master system? Seems to work well for skill trades, why not for doctors?
Yes, absolutely.
> What is your suggestion to replace that? As some careers demand a certain level of competency and skill (Doctors, Nurses, Civil Engineers, et cetera)?
It turns out someone else here has asked me the same question, please see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=645576 (my answer follows there).
> Maybe an apprentice/master system? Seems to work well for skill trades, why not for doctors?
Agreed. They do this already in a way, but if you combine it with a much more diverse set of options I think that would accomplish the goal.
> Whether the current Chinese/Russian model of free markets but central strong political oligarchy without an ideological emphasis, versus the American model of free markets and free democracy with a strong ideology (leader of the free world), the viability of either models remains to be seem.
Neither of these models can accurately be described as consisting of "free markets". All three governments you mention exercise total control over their respective territories.
As for Tienanmen, every single mob revolution in the history of the world has caused far more deaths than the number of people who died at Tienanmen. Imagine how many millions of lives would have been saved if Louis the XVI had acted in the same way as Deng. The Chinese government did the right thing in putting in forcefully dispersing the mob. Any government, when faced with a armed, violent rebellion, needs to put it down. Revolutions and civil wars are the worse than any government. (And yes, the protesters had weapons: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0385482329/ref=sib_dp_srch_p... )
Had Louis XVI acted in the same way as Deng, continental Europe may still be under the heel of absolute monarchism today, with all the stupid pointless wars that entails. The French Revolution was a step forward for humanity, no matter how messy it was.
Gorbechev was fairly similar to Deng. He liberalized the economy and increased freedom of speech, but he did not allow democracy. Yeltsin introduced democracy, and what was the result? A terrible economy, a dramatic rise in suicide rates and alcoholism, and now under Putin, even speech is becoming less free. If only there could have been two Dengs, one for China and one for Russia!
The heel of monarchism? What heel? The fundamental problem of monarchy was not that it was oppressive (it wasn't), but that it wasn't a very good military Schelling point. Were taxes higher under monarchy? Was their less freedom of speech? Were there more wars? No, no, and no. Where do you get your history?
Look at the history of free speech for example. Pretty much every country that has gotten free speech, originally got free speech while under non-democratic government (Britain under the monarchy, France under Louis the XVI, U.S. under British Colonial rule, Germany under Allied military command, Japan under allied military command). Democracy has generally either been neutral or corrosive towards freedom ( the French Revolution, the terrorizing of the loyalists in America http://books.google.com/books?id=SZccAAAAMAAJ&printsec=f... , Nazis, etc ).
And pointless wars? The Wars of the French Revolution killed far, far more than any monarchist war. Not only that, they invented the usage of mass slave armies to fight the war. The French Revolution Wars and the Napoleonic Wars presaged the great Democratic total wars that followed - the Civil War, WWI, and WWII.
Had Louis the XVI put down the mob, the nationalization, conscript armies, and total war may have never been invented. Prussia would have never felt the need to unify to protect themselves against France. It's almost impossible to imagine World War I or World War II without the Wars of the French Revolution.
The British monarchy was a constitutional monarchy with almost all of the real power devolved to the nobles and the commons by the time of the French Revolution, quite unlike the French monarchy prior to the revolution. It's a fallacy to compare the two. The American revolution was an issue of home rule, not an issue of democracy vs. monarchy. And not the first such conflict the British Empire would face.
The Wars of the French Revolution were monarchist wars, waged to protect Europe's monarchs from the seeds of dissension spread from the revolution. So, technically, were the Napoleonic wars, as Napoleon was an emperor. However, the Napoleonic Code was a step forward for civil rights in Europe.
The aggressors in WWI and WWII were either monarchies or dictatorships: Germany under the Kaiser, Austia-Hungary under the Habsburg monarchy, the Ottomans under their monarchy, Germany and Italy under fascist dictatorships, and Japan under a monarchy. At best you can pin Nazi Germany under the banner of democracy, since the Nazis were technically elected to parliament (after their street thugs started the Reichstag fire and beat up all the opposition). But since the Nazis were outspoken detractors of the very idea of democracy, even that is a stretch.
The people who died were people who refused to vacate a public area after occupying it for weeks, accumulating automatic weapons, defying orders to disperse, and burning buses and using them as blockades. These were not peaceful reformers, but power seeking revolutionaries, in the mold of revolutionaries that have destroyed nations for the past three centuries. At some point, a protest becomes an outright rebellion, and the government has every right and duty to put it down. The Tienanmen protesters crossed that line.
The Wars of the French Revolution were monarchist wars, waged to protect Europe's monarchs from the seeds of dissension spread from the revolution.
No, the French were the aggressors. The political leaders exaggerated the threats from the other countries ( as politicians are want to do), stoked the fears of the mob, and France declared war on the monarchies.
So, technically, were the Napoleonic wars, as Napoleon was an emperor.
Napoleon was a popular tyrant, a result of a revolution. A regime is defined by its succession process, not the names it's leaders go by. Succession processes that involve mobs and/or violence result in disaster.
Germany under the Kaiser, Austia-Hungary under the Habsburg monarchy, the Ottomans under their monarchy, Germany and Italy under fascist dictatorships, and Japan under a monarchy.
Almost all the main participants of World War I were at least as Democratic, if not more so, than the modern U.S. Germany had a democratically elected parliament that approved the war, as did France, Britain and Austria.
Stefan Zweig lived through Austria's tranisition from being a monarchy/aristocracy to having a universal suffrage parliament. He wrote:
Hardly had this [Universal Suffrage] been granted, or rather obtained by force, before it became apparent how thin though highly valuable a layer of liberalism had been. With it concilliation disappeared from public political life, interests hit hard against interests, and the struggle began.
But soon a third flower appeared, the blue cornflower, Bismarck's favorite flower, and the emblem of the German National Party, which -- although not then recognized as such -- was counsciously a revolutionary party, and worked with burtal forcefulness for the destruction of the Austrian monarchy in favour of a Greater Germany under Prussian and Protestant leadership, such as Hitlers dreams of. Weak in numbers, it made up for its unimportance by wild aggression and unbridled brutality. Its few representatives became the terror and ( in the old sense ) the shame of the Austrian parliament. Hiter also took over from them the anti-semitic racial theory - "In that race lies swinishness" his illustrious prototype had said. But above all else, he took from the German Nationals the beginning of a ruthless storm troop that blindly hit out in all directions, and with it the principle of terroristic intimidation by a small group over a numerically superior but humanely more passive majority.
I suggest you read the whole thing, it's from "The World of Yesterday". The introduction of universal suffrage to Austria, Germany, France, and Britain, etc., created the Fox News effect. Also known as the Yellow journalism effect. Also known as "Jingoism". Politicians competed with each other to blame problems on the leaders of other countries. Newspapers ran sensationalist headlines, selling copy by playing off prejudice and hatred.
Stefan Zweig visited France, and wrote about his experience attending a movie:
It was a small suburban cinema, utterly different from the modern palaces of chromium and glass; a sparsely fitted hall, filled with humble folk, workers, soldiers, market women -- the plain people -- who chatted comfortably. The third picture was "Kaiser Wilhelm visitis the Emperor Francis Joseph in Vienna." The train came on the screen, the first coach, the second, and the third. The door of the compartment was thrown open, and out stepped William II in the uniform of an Austrian General, his moustache curled stiffly upwards. The moment he appeared in the picture, a spontaneous wild whistling and stamping of feet began in the dark hall. Everybody yelled and whistled, men, women, and children, as if they had been personally instuled. The good natured people of Tours, who knew no more about the world and politics than what they had read in their newspapers, had gone mad for an instant. I was frightened. I was frightened to the depths of my heart. For I sensed how deeply the poison of the propaganda of hate must have advanced through the years, when even here in a small provincial city the simple citizens and soldiers had been so greatly incited agaisnte the Kaiser and against Germany that a passing picture on the screen could produce such a demonstration.
It was these hatreds that created World War I. Historian Carroll Quigley writes:
The influence of democracy served to increase the tension of a crisis because elected politicians felt it necessary to pander to the most irrational and crass motivations of the electorate in order to ensure future election, and did this by playing on hatred and fear of powerful neighbors or on such appealing issues as territorial expansion, nationalistic price, "a place in the sun," "outlets to the sea," and other real or imagined benefits. At the same time, the popular newspaper press, in order to sell papers, played on the same motives and issues, arousing their peoples, driving their own own politicians to extremes, and alarming neighboring states to the point where they hurried to adopt similar kinds of of action in the name of self-defense. Moreover, democracy made it impossible to examine international disputes on their merits, but instead transformed every petty argument into an affair of honor and national prestige so that no dispute could be examined on its merits or settled as a simple compromise because such a sensible approach would at once be hailed by one's democratic opposition as a loss of face and an unseemly compromise of exalted moral principles.
Hitler came to the power as the result of mob violence, which perfectly backs my point about the need to put down mob violence. If only the German generals had cracked down on the street thugs as Deng had put down the Tienanmen protesters.
As for Japan, even leftist historians admit that FDR provoked Japan into war. They just think that it was justified, in order to get the U.S. into the war against Germany. The Japanese government made numerous peace attempts that were all rebuffed. When the U.S. cut off their oil supply they basically had no choice, die slowly, or make a desparate gambit to knock out U.S. military capabilities. I suggest reading this: http://mises.org/books/perpetual.pdf
Wow.
So Mao was okay in killing millions, but a few thousand held up in a park constitutes "power-seeking revolutionaries"
In a democracy, you change up who is in power every so often. How could a supporter of frequently-changing power structures be "power-seeking"?
Created the Fox News effect ... It was these hatreds that created World War I
WWI was caused by a lot of pre-planned military manuevers that ran automatically.
The August Madness was real, but don't go blaming the entire war on that.
Hitler came to power as a result of mob violence
Once again, you overstate. Hitler was part of a highly-motivated and organized political party. He was as much part of a mob as he was a ballerina.
FDR provoked Japan into war
What?
It's great to have unusual views. But you are really way on the outside of left field with a lot of these views. It's almost like you already have the answer and are taking a historical hammer and banging away to make the facts fit into your preconceived worldview.
I mean, hey, we all do the same thing, but at some point if you're making a dozen points that are all extremely debatable perhaps your logic isn't on such solid ground, you know?
Let's say taxes were higher, that doesn't mean a decrease in liberty. They fought because of taxation without representation, not because of high taxes.
So you're saying that majority rule in USA tends to prevent the smarter people from getting any power? I think what generally happens is that people who are smarter, and do things better, will do it. At least they have the ability to. Reality will prevail and reveal how much better they are, and then the majority will pursue the new method/idea.
As far as the war of independence goes, they were being taxed and not being represented properly, and this was an infringement on liberty. Were they doing it so that they can tax themselves higher later? No, of course not. That's not the reason why they wanted independence. They wanted independence to oppose that specific tyranny. So you can't argue that it was a bad decision because they ended up later having higher taxes anyways. You can't say independence was unjustified, because the act of fighting for independence does not by default lead to less liberty by taxation
Likewise the statement that blood of tyrants must be shed to preserve liberty is not necessarily wrong by your reasoning because the current act to preserve liberty by bloodshed committed by the Americans was not done with knowledge that it would lead to higher taxation--and less liberty-- later on. So Jefferson saying that bloodshed is necessary to oppose any current liberty restraining powers is independent of any future infringements on liberty, because if such future infringements occur, simply reapply Jefferson's commandment and kill your oppressive leaders.
I don't think you have a full understanding of just how messy the French Revolution was. Are you familiar with the war in the Vendee? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vendee
How about the Committee of Public Safety? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Public_Safety
I'd love to read some pro-Revolution writings if you can recommend any.
> The French Revolution was a step forward for humanity, no matter how messy it was.
(from http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=868344)
The idea that the government should kill protesters might seem far too disrespectful of human life, but then, doesn't the word "messy" in the above quote evoke the same reaction?
No, it isn't, because your argument depends on the "end" being an escape from "absolute monarchism" into democracy. Even if you believe the ends justify the means in general, the argument doesn't work when the end result is not very good.