In this controversial TED talk, Eric Li proposes that there is more than one way to run a modern nation. Essentially he argues that China's one-party system is not as bad as everyone seems to think, and in fact is in many ways better. In it he challenges the assumptions of the West about the Chinese government. Watch the talk, considering the following questions and post your responses (one question-one post). Also, keep in mind this is simply a mechanism to discuss some of the concepts we talk about in class so please keep it civil in your posts.
1. Generally, do you buy his idea that the Chinese one party system is based on adaptability, meritocracy and legitimacy? Specifically cite the flaws or merit of the evidence he uses in his theory.
2. Is the party organization in China a "human resources machine" as he claims? Does the statement claiming that George Bush and Barack Obama couldn't have made a small county manager in China's system make his point about the merit of the party organization? Why or why not?
3. Do you think the optimism of the Chinese people, especially the youth about their future helps to prove his point about the legitimacy of the Chinese regime? Why or why not?
4. What is one major issue that he largely avoids throughout the talk that many people would point to as evidence to nullify many of his arguments?
1. I do believe for the most part that his system has value, however the I feel the meritocracy is not any more efficient than any western system. People hoping to get promoted have to be reviewed by a committee, leading to an opportunity for nepotism, just like any US official hoping for a posting.
ReplyDelete1. Overall, i think Li makes a good argument of the merits of the Chinese one party system, citing specific evidence for each of the claims he made. For example, he talks about the radical political reforms that the government has made through the years that demonstrates their flexibility and responsiveness. However, he didn't mention the effectiveness of the reforms and how it helped the nation. He also discusses the elaborate ladder of competency that the system has but then addresses the extensive corruption that is present, contradicting the evidence he showed.
ReplyDeleteWell I will say that I have different opinions on his ideas of how china is adaptable,meritbased and legitimate.
ReplyDeleteI think that hes right that china has a merit system and is legit. I mean that chjna has several levels of political managment and that they filter it out to get the most capable people to the top. I am sure there is some corruption but there is a massive incentive to rise higher and the way to do that is to become more capable. I also consider legitmae because of the simple reasom that the chinese people support it, In my eyes,legitamacy depend on the law of the land.Since china as a people accept it as a government then as far as im concerned,the one party system is a legit placement.
However,I disagree that china is adaptable to other conditions, It has a well placed history of being stagnant and so far it has not done anything radical from the time it changed ro communism and the one party state. It also approaches problrms in the same way:beurocratic and cautious.
1) I think the Chinese One Party system produces significant advances economically because there is no opposition to prevent them from moving forward. The system seems to promote meritocracy, however, corruption seems to be too much of a problem to argue that it is completely legitimate. They are optimistic in their view which may be the key for making the system to work.
ReplyDelete1) I think one major oversight on the part of the speaker was the fact that the optimism he mentioned is easy to have in a country where the vast majority of the population is mired in poverty and no real protection exists for individuals against government abuses of their rights
ReplyDelete2) I don't think so, because leaders in the United States have different responsibilities in that they do not have to manage the entire economy like in China.
3) As mentioned in (1), the optimism on the part of youth is not a fair metric to use because the youth in China, as a whole, have so much less than Western, and particularly American youth, so there's a lot more to hope for in terms of economic progress—especially with the strong pro-Communist schooling they receive that convinces them that better days are coming. In the US, there is no comparable pro-capitalist schooling.
4) He failed to mention the fact that a tremendous amount of Chinese are living in dire economic circumstances—many more percentage-wise than in the US.
2. The question I immediately thought of when he talked about the human resource machine was if there is a group that decides who to promote, who regulates that group? In democracy, the people are the ultimate regulators but in this system, it's unclear who would regulate the top politburo.
ReplyDelete1.) I believe that China's one party system is based on legitimacy and adaptability, but not on meritocracy. China has proven itself adaptable to the modern economy through manipulation of the Yen and their transition to be one of the largest exporters in the world. China also holds a mixture of charismatic and traditional legitimacies. However, there is proven corruption within the Chinese government (it's not only in House of Cards). Furthermore it is even more difficult to remove these corrupt leaders without elections. This shows that the Chinese system does not have a strong base in meritocracy.
ReplyDelete2.) I believe that China is strong in taking advantage of there resources, but it comes at the cost of human individuality. China's imposed systems place the state ahead of the people who make it up. As far as George Bush and Obama, I believe that they would not be so high up on the totem pole right now (Obama was only a senator for 2 years and Bush....). I believe they would make progress over time, but their acceleration would be much slower. However, this system ensures that corruption becomes an even bigger problem.
3.) I believe that China will continue to rise, but they will level out soon enough. Lawsuits against China's deliberate currency fixing will continue to plague their growth, a and all Chinese need to understand that they need to be more of a team player in order to continue their growth.
4.) HUMAN RIGHTS. China's one party state does not allow for dissenting opinions to be heard in any real regard. Discontent may be expressed in a survey, but this affects no real change in the regime's policies. The brutal regression of civilian protests reveal the deeply flawed nature of China's one party system.
2) I think the system in China is interesting because theoretically it is very efficient. If the mobility was based on merit and success then the system could be an excellent source of political leaders. I would actually prefer this system to our own system because I would want leaders in place who get things done and maintain a plan rather than politicians who are just trying to get reelected in the next cycle.
ReplyDelete1. I agree that the one party system in China is based on adaptability. In the video he cites historical examples of how the party made drastic changes to its policies in order to improve conditions. This system is effective because if a new party is allowed to take power in order to change the system, then a lot of other policies that might not be bad could also change. I also agree with his statement that the system is based on meritocracy and legitimacy. The example of how people are reviewed in order to determine what track they should be put in, effectively demonstrates this because they are given tasks based on their achievements in their area. This also shows that the system is based on legitimacy because people are reviewed logically in order to determine if they are competent to be leaders.
ReplyDelete3) I think there optimism is warranted because the country has shown some outstanding economic growth . despite some of the underlying social problems I believe China can actually become the biggest economy. The culture there will breed innovation.
ReplyDelete2. The party organization is a human resources machine because it promotes people to jobs which they are good at and can best contribute to the society. The statement about Bush and Obama do not contribute to his point about party organization however because their job is not the same as a manager of a district in China.
ReplyDelete3. The fact that the leaders are skilled enough to effectively manage China is enough proof for the legitimacy of the regime. Also, if the statistics are true, then the peoples optimistic opinions also prove his point. Since the people are happy about future of China, and the leaders are creating that future, the people must also approve of the leaders.
ReplyDelete4. He does not talk about how the Central Committee is regulated and what would happen if they are corrupt.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. No, I do not completely agree with his assertion that the Chinese one-party system is based on the three concepts. Although the information he presented provides mostly convincing evidence to demonstrate the merits of the one-party system, the evidence is somewhat selective and fails to account for certain essential factors that contradict his theory. For example, the historical timeline he provides to indicate the dramatic transformation in the government’s approach to economic policies going from collectivization to acceptance of private businesses helps prove the ability of one-party system to adapt to changing circumstances. He also talks about significant political reforms. However, he seems to gloss over the fact that while the Chinese may have taken on new economic measures or political measures within the political party, they have not shown any adaptive tendencies to account for changing global values that emphasize individual freedoms, etc. Also, I don’t think that the adaptability exhibited in China is a direct consequence of the one-party system as Li appears to be arguing. Other factors such as increasing globalization forcing China to adapt in order to compete as well may also have played a role. To indicate the meritocracy fostered by the system, Li speaks about the fact that only a very small percentage of government officials came for privileged backgrounds. This does highlight the ability of the competitive party organizing system to almost remove discrimination that often becomes entrenched in political system and allows the party to choose leaders solely based on merit. But I was surprised when he noted that the entire process takes almost 30 years. To me, this suggest that there is very little youth representation in government and I think that is a problem for a system that tries to only judge based on merit. Finally, to underscore the system’s legitimacy, he again cites a series of statistics that display the population’s optimism and satisfaction with government. I think this is a very simplistic interpretation of legitimacy. Surveys have tendency to be flawed and can often exaggerate opinions. More importantly, legitimacy, if I understand it correctly, is a complex concept that moves way beyond the achievement of societal satisfaction, and proof of its existence cannot just be based on a few statistics. People must have faith in the political system in order to legitimate and I think this is something that is much harder to quantify.
ReplyDelete2. Although the party organization does foster merit-based competition thus allowing for the selection of effective leaders, it fails to allow for youth representation as the entire process is lengthy and takes almost 25-30 years. This flaw in the system prevents it from being completely meritocratic as a significant segment of the population that might be fully qualified is excluded for the most powerful institutions. Moreover, it prevents the system from being completely representative of society and can thus, diminish its legitimacy. Recently, I actually read an article that discussed this very trend where Chinese youth are becoming more mistrustful of government especially as access to information through the internet increases. The statement about Bush and Obama does not prove anything and seems to be more of a side joke than a legitimate point. Obama in a sense is an example of the merit system working because he did come from an ordinary or even disadvantaged background and was able to advance through the ladder as a result of his merit.
ReplyDelete3. No, because citing statistics and polling numbers can often be very misleading. Surveys are highly susceptible to biases on the part of both the surveyor and the population. In addition, the population is subjected to a large amount of propaganda due to the tight government control of media, which may influence their responses to polls. Also, the Chinese government has a history of both manipulating data in the past and pressuring the population to respond in certain ways, thus, making the data and the subsequent conclusions deduced from it even more doubtful. Finally even if the statistics were completely accurate the fact that there are so few youth in government can have a severe impact on the legitimacy of the government in which they have very little voice.
ReplyDelete4. One major issue that he largely avoids is the severe economic inequality prevalent in China. The lack of economic equality is very ironic in a country that was founded on the principles of communism and still espouses it in theory. The fact that even with the one party system they were not able to achieve or barely even try to achieve this goal threatens its legitimacy. It also nullifies the meritocracy argument because if significant segments of the population are so disadvantaged, it is difficult for them to compete even in a system based on merit. Finally, it harms its adaptability as economic disparity can have lasting impacts on the economic health of the country limiting its ability to support adjustment due to changing circumstances.
ReplyDelete1. I do think that the China's one party system is based on legitimacy, meritocracy, and adaptability based on his presentation and how much he seems to support this system. The evidence he used such as the statistics and making the references to Bush and Obama seem to be convincing enough that it accepts these assertions about the one party system; however, I, personally, am still a little skeptical. I think that based on the change that China witnessed because of this party system reflects a lot about the system but like all political systems, not all success can be attributed to it nor can it not have any flaws.
ReplyDelete2. Once again, basing all on Li's presentation it does seem like China's organization is a human resources machine considering that it helps the people and provides for them. This can be seen in the reported satisfaction reports (but again those could have been altered). I do think that by making the comparison to Obama and Bush and their status as being not that significant in Chin a if they were there does highlight and emphasize their merits in their organization because basically he is saying that the leader and the person who ultimately had all the power of the United States, a whole country, is not even qualified for China's minor positions.
ReplyDeleteI do think that the high satisfaction rating of the youth prove the legitimacy of their system because it shows how basically the young people who will eventually take over the country (Whitney Houston couldn't have said it best when she said, "I believe the children are our future.") is in approval for the country's current system. Therefore, the youth, when they eventually grow up and take over, they will continue with this kind of system as it had proven to be a good one during their youth and obviously if the youth are confident and hopeful for their future, there is a strong probability that their parents are also satisfied with the system and thus legitimizing it.
ReplyDelete4. Where you got them statistics Li?!?!!? Obviously, the statistics he used, such as the satisfaction level for countries including China's and others, seem to all put China in the glorious and shining light. However, there are reasons to believe that these data and statistics are not reliable since these reports may have been altered and skewed to make them more appealing and can then be used as argument for Li!
ReplyDelete4. As brought out by the question portion of the TED Talk, Li failed to mention that there is civil unrest and protests in China, that not everyone, as you would think from his statistics, are in love with where the Chinese government is going. He wants to create this idealized image of the 'one-party' system, but by avoiding protests and citizen participation in politics, in whatever capacity it may be, he dehumanizes the one-party system, and, for me, makes him look less credible.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking that maybe he avoided this subject because he felt it put a spot on the statistics he presented on satisfaction with the Chinese government. However, I feel that protest is a natural part of any form of government. To me, protests and unhappiness among citizens are very common, and as such, should be 'owned' by Li, who is trying to make an argument for the legitimacy of the one-party system.
3. I do not think the optimism of Chinese youths help to necessarily prove his point about the legitimacy of the Chinese regime. While youth optimism is a good sign that the nation is moving in a direction that the next generation will be more accepting of, it may not be a sign that can prove the legitimacy of the regime. These young people do not know any other system than the one they have been exposed to. Why would they be upset about the Chinese regime when they have nothing to compare it to. And when I say compare, I do not mean compare by means of the world's standards, but their personal standards (since Li has the view that there are two answers to an ideal government, which cannot be true in the minds of every person). Another point is that their optimism could be a result of a hope for more freedom in China. They could be optimistic to see a change that will push China forward in a positive, less repressive direction.
ReplyDelete3. I think if the survey was completely honest and unbiased, it would provide good evidence that the people believe the regime is legitimate. However, you must consider the reliability of the survey. Even if the survey was unbiased and fair, you have to consider that the people might have been pressured to answer a certain way or fearful of the repercussions if they did not condone the party. Another alternative is that they might have been shown propaganda that makes them believe things are going better than they are. The not so cynical alternative though, is that the people do truly believe this which wouldn't even be surprising considering that China is such an economic powerhouse.
ReplyDelete4. A major idea that Li avoided was what I alluded to in my answer to question 2: who controls the central committee to make sure this main control center is not corrupt? There seems not to be an authority above the central committee, so unless they are honestly self regulating, which is dubious, it is hard to accept that they are not corrupt. Also, Li fails to mention the many social ills China is facing such as the immense gap between the number of males of females in China that leads people to measures like smuggling girls to become brides to the many bachelors.
ReplyDelete1. I don't completely buy Li's assertions - specifically how meritocracy makes the Chinese system ideal, and how "adaptable" the system is. Obviously, I am biased because I was raised from the West, but I think that in order to be adaptable, a system needs less of a rigid construct. He notes that the party "self-corrects" itself, which to me inherently means that the party is a monopoly that guarantees certain people make decisions and everyone else has to follow these rules. Now, obviously this is a tenet to an extent of communism (no individual freedom), but on a larger scale, the merit system guarantees that if you know how to play the game - to get to a "prestigious" position - that you will be there essentially forever (or until you are 68-70). Li even notes in his speech that corruption, which is inherent with men who have large amounts of power over a prolonged period, is a major issue within the Chinese government. So, if these men are in power, and "legitimized" by the merit system, there is no check and balance, and consequently no change. Li tries to counter this by noting, " from radical land collectivization to the Great Leap Forward, then privatization of farmland, then the Cultural Revolution, then Deng Xiaoping's market reform, then successor Jiang Zemin took the giant political step of opening up Party membership to private businesspeople, something unimaginable during Mao's rule," when referencing change. However, the flaw in this statement lies in the idea that change only comes after a new successor takes power. If successors last for 20+ years, is the party really that adaptable?
ReplyDelete. 1. Much of Li's argument only scratches the surface of his theory- he mentions the flaws that have been pointed out about the Chinese state, and then quickly dismisses them without much explanation. Concerning adaptability, Li claimst that a one party state is actually more open to reform, as it it is responsive to the needs of its citizens. My problem with this argument is that there is nothing holding the one party government to the people. He also states that the organization bureau of the party ensures that the officials are appointed by merit. While this shows competition within the state, it is still ultimately controlled by the government. Lastly, regarding legitimacy, Li simply said that the Chinese state is competent. 2. If the party is as Li claims, then the title of a human resource machine is fitting. However, the only point that his statement concerning US presidents makes is that the Chinese communist party is highly centralized to an extent of bureaucracy that requires knowledge of every internal system and policy. 3.While the optimism of the youth in Chuna could be a signal of legitimacy, it could also be a sign that a whole generation has been taught that the state was legitimate and responsive. 4. One issue that Li attempted to address was the happiness of the Chinese people- he claimed that surveys tell you all you need to know about their standard of living. However, he avoids the obvious counterclaim that surveys may represent only a small fraction of the population, and therefore reveal little about the happiness of the Chinese citizens.
ReplyDelete2. I do believe that the party system is efficient, as a "human resource engine". I think that the systems are probably are beneficial for the members of the government who gain leadership skills. However, for the common man, I think that the system is a bit lacking. Reports and polls across the web show that the standard of living for residents in China is still among the lowest in the world. Although the overall economic status of China has continued to grow for the past 15 years, the glory of China has yet to benefit the majority of the population. So if these individuals are so "qualified", why have they not remedied this significant issue by making the lives of Chinese individuals better overall? I'm not saying that these individuals have change the lives of every individual, but I think the figures in the following link demonstrate a lacking of impact on the common Chinese individual in terms of making his life better than before the administration's inception.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-on-the-economic-rise-too-bad-their-quality-of-life-isnt-2011-8
3. I think that growing up under this regime all their lives, in addition to propaganda pretty much guarantees that Chinese youth would approve of the regime. I think that outside influence and ideas might sway them, simply because they have choices, and opportunities to compare these new systems to those of China. However, overall, I think that youth are generally optimistic, and that based on nationalism that they would support their country. This being said, I don't believe that this optimism really legitimizes the Chinese system.
ReplyDelete1) I do not buy his idea that the one party system is based in adaptability, meritocracy, and legitimacy. It does not appear to me that it is adaptive because there is nothing to make the leaders change course from what they are doing if the people do not like it. If all of the leaders decide that they want to continue in their actions even though a survey about their leadership shows that the people do not like what is happening, then there is nothing to stop them. In fact, it seems that there is nothing that makes them listen to the surveys at all. I have the same problem with the meritocracy idea. In the rotating pyramid with four levels, he never said who had the authority to promote people. I think that corruption could work here to promote only the people who think in the same way as the current leaders. To me, the only thing that does seem to be true, at least at the current time, is the idea that this system is legitimate. If, according to the surveys, most of the people think that their government is going in the right direction, then I think it has legitimacy. I just think that if these surveys stat to show that the people are unhappy, then there is nothing that they can do to change anything if the leadership does not want to change.
ReplyDelete2) I think that the party organization does fit the idea of a human resources machine in that it uses people to manage based on their abilities. I believe it is a good idea for people with the ability to do a job to do that job rather than someone do it who has no ability. His comment about Bush and Obama fits this idea. Before both Bush and Obama were elected to be the president, they had minimal experience to do the job that they were going in to. With the system described in the talk, it seems like the Chinese leader would have the most experience coming into the leadership position, and would therefore be the best person for the job.
ReplyDelete3) I think that the optimism in China is solely due to the fact that the economy is growing at such a high rate. If the system were to start to fail, and the economy were to go in the opposite direction, then I think the optimism would disappear very quickly. This means that right now, the regime in China has legitimacy and the people want it there, and Eric Li is correct.
ReplyDelete4) The main issue that was not acknowledged through the whole talk is who the person or committee who has the authority to promote people up into the positions of power. In my answer to number one I talked about this. I was afraid that whoever it is who has the authority to promote people might easily become corrupted. Even if they are completely separate from the people who make decisions for the country, they can still control what happens by only promoting people who will do what they want.
ReplyDelete4. I think an issue that he failed to address is the role of civil society. He sort of avoided mentioning in the questions at the end of the talk how the civil society/common man can make his voice heard to Chinese government. I think that this topic was also avoided throughout the talk, and honestly questions just how effective the government is at represented true national interests.
ReplyDelete1. I believe that China's one party system is based on legitimacy and adaptability, but not meritocracy. The system can change, and has changed in the past when it has needed to, and the people view it was legitimate, but there is corruption. Without elections, that corruption is left to fester until another leader can come along and replace the old one.
ReplyDelete2. It would appear to be a human resources machine, and it seems effective. But our leaders are often charismatic and respected, something that I feel every leader needs. The point about how ineffective our leaders seem to be doesn't make China's system any better, just different.
ReplyDelete3. No. Statistics can be very misleading, and when a people have been subjected to propaganda all their lives they are subject to significant bias in one direction or the other. This has little affect on the performance or views of the country.
ReplyDelete4. Human rights were avoided. There was no mention of how people could disagree with the government, or how their lives and what they can view and say can be censored. In a one party system, no other views can be allowed to form, and when they do a "situation" usually happens that removes any dissent.
ReplyDelete1) I do not think that Li's idea that the Chinese one party system is based on adaptability, meritocracy, and legitimacy, especially adaptability. I found his claims on adaptability interesting; however, I saw that he used the examples of the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, both of which were failures. Although I understand that the point of mentioning these movements were to emphasize that China was able to adapt and promote new policies but I saw the flaw of the examples being failed attempts at adapting and moving forward as they did not improve China as a whole, especially politically and economically so I saw his claims of adaptability to be flawed.
ReplyDelete2) I think the the party organization is a human resources machine because they aim to have the right people fit for the job of running the state and that is what is important; however, I think that his comment on Obama and Bush is somewhat irrelevant as the people vote them into office and so the people believe they are fit to run the country.
ReplyDelete3) I think that the optimism of the Chinese people did not prove his point about the legitimacy of the Chinese regime. While it may represent the people and well being of the country as whole, the surveys can be extremely biased, especially since they must have been given out by the government. Obviously those who live under the regime would find no fault in it and that reflects in the surveys, which hold much bias.
ReplyDelete4) While Li mentioned problems of pollution and corruption, I think one major issue he avoided was the civil unrest in China. Although he used surveys from the people themselves, he never gave a real source of his information. He simply said they were surveys taken so these surveys may not reflect the well being of the country, especially since he failed to mention the civil unrest and protests.
ReplyDelete1) Based on the criteria of adaptability and meritocracy, I found myself buying the idea that Eric Li presented. The prominent example that he used that got my attention was the fuke, ke, fuchu, etc. system and how 80% of the Politburo came from normal backgrounds with only the 20% coming from privileged backgrounds. The range of adaptability that took place through the last 60 years, which included radical land collectivization, cultural revolution, and Jiang’s Party Opening. However, in regards to legitimacy, although many graphs were presented during his presentation, I still felt particularly unsatisfied with how legitimacy was expressed. The majority of his talk gained my attention through the examples he used, so perhaps this made my opinion bias as well.
ReplyDelete2) The “human resources machine” claim is in a way a valid statement because jobs are available for the purpose of satisfying the people. The comparison of George Bush and Barack Obama to county managers was a little hyperbolic because Li made this point to exemplify the merit in the one-party system in China. There is however, no evidence behind this statement and to me it seems as though this was said to receive attention from the audience.
3) The statement referring to 93% of the youth in China being optimistic for the future did provide an appropriate understanding of how China’s party is legitimate. However, simply taken a survey just from the youth can go noticed as sole reasoning behind making the bold statement that the Chinese regime is legitimate.
4) One issue was the utilization of statistics. With all talk about legitimacy, it would only seem appropriate to know for a fact that the data collected is legitimate as well. There was also the issue of corruption. Li did mention how corruption is viewed as a result of one party systems and analysts mistakenly categorize the system as the sole cause of corruption. Li did continuously mention how this is a problem, but never went into specific details or statistics as he did with the positives; instead he went along the lines of the conceptual route with it by saying how it is not a factor in how the regime is controlled.
1. While I do think that the argument that the one-party system in China is based on meritocracy might be valid because of the merit-based system of moving up through the ranks, I do not think it is based on legitimacy or adaptability because of the lack of communication between the people and the government. The people determine the legitimacy of the government, and also the directions to which it must adapt, so if the government is not getting the input of the people, I don't see how those two things can be possible.
ReplyDelete1. he made some good points, and theyre system of merit based leadership is a very smart thing to do, but it is obvious that his satisfaction ratings are skewed. it is impossible to have such a high approval rating without coercion. they say it is based on legitimacy, but the Chinese people probably do not even know who the leaders are, they just trust the only party that can rule over them
ReplyDelete2.well the merit system is a good idea, but the fact that our presidents would not have made it is debatable, but even so it does not matter. with our political system, our leaders have smart and hard working people behind them advising them to make the right decision. if they were an absolute ruler, than they would have to be more intelligent and capable. but books smarts and kissing butt is not the best trait of a leader. leaders need to have their own ideals and have a personality to inspire a country and understand how policies will affect the country.
ReplyDelete2. I don't think that the party organization is a "human resources machine" because, although the merit-based system for gaining office may be efficient and effective in providing qualified individuals, it removes a lot of the diversity that would be beneficial to the party. I think that it trains all of the competitors for office to think the same way, so there is little hope for change at all. In this way, I think that his claim about Bush and Obama is irrelevant. Our system in America is the opposite because we value creative, unique thought and diversity. Plus the reverse can probably be held true as well-- Americans probably would not vote a high-ranking Chinese official under this system into office.
ReplyDelete3. no. youth are ignorant and stupid and are just listening to what the propaganda and what their parents are forced to tell them. his facts are obviously skewed and forged. youth are naturally optimistic and happy, and most of them do not understand the objective world.
ReplyDelete4. he avoids the fact that they deny personal liberties which would easily make the people unhappy and feel oppressed. there is only option to follow the governemtn. otherwise you will get got.
ReplyDelete3. I don't think so, because I think that the children have probably been encouraged and trained, in a sense, to think so optimistically. With a government so restrictive, I am sure that there aren't many fair debates weighing the pros and cons of the party and allowing the children to freely formulate their own opinions. Also, with such a restrictive government, I feel that it is very easy for the survey data to be biased or regulated in some way, skewing the results.
ReplyDelete4. Li fails to acknowledge pretty much all and any inequality and discontent in China. As we learned from our BBC articles, China is full of widespread economic and social issues and inequalities, yet he did not address a single one.
ReplyDelete2) I don't think that the comparison he made was very fair. Because of our countries' drastic differences, the steps one takes in one country to achieve success would be much different than the steps one takes in the other country. Obama and Bush were groomed and raised in the U.S. and their path to prominence would have had to have been different if they were in China simply because there are different factors involved as a result to the different governments.
ReplyDelete3) I think that the people's optimisms further validates how well their system is working for the people. Although it is not a system Westerners are used to, the Chinese are clearly pleased with it. I think as long as the system prospers we will continue to hear good things.
ReplyDelete4) Social/human rights. I can't imagine it to be easy for a man on the bottom of the totem pole to make his voice heard AND for someone to respond to his complaints/problems. They don't have as much say in their government because they cannot be as well represented as in Western countries. Although the majority may be happy with things, a minority's complaints may fall upon ears that don't care to hear them.
ReplyDelete