Faeelin
Banned
It would be interesting to compare land ownership versus serfdom in Ming and Qing China to Europe.
WI: The Cultivation of Democracy in China
- Thread starter SeaBos
- Start date
It would be interesting to compare land ownership versus serfdom in Ming and Qing China to Europe.
Napoleonrules
Banned
Page 290, first sentence, first paragraph, beginning of chapter 20 Oriental Despotism.
"With the possible brief exception of the late-twentieth century Republic of China (since 1949 moves to Taiwan), no Chinese government has accepted a true rule of law"
RousseauX
Donor
yeah that just means they don't accept western level rule of law but do have "good enough" property rights actually let's just read the whole passage here
Notice how he doesn't blame lack of industrialization on property rights or lack thereof and specifically points out why modern economist's emphasis on rule of law as a component of development is problematic which straight up contradicts what you said?
RousseauX
Donor
@Napoleonrules
the reason why I'm calling you out so much here btw is because if you actually read the book for more than 20 pages you'll realize Fukuyama's fundamental thesis in the book is that things that liberal economists care (property rights and the legal system/tradition/rule of law/we you wanna call it) about don't matter as much as the "quality" of a state. He basically defines "quality" as how close a state's institutions approximate a modern bureaucracy with examinations and standardized procedures which renders decision making and policy implementation "impersonal" instead of traditional "patrimonial" (very personal/family based) organizations. The former is good and the latter is bad.
You can debate on whether his thesis is actually right or not but that is his basic thesis.
I guess those countries are ASBs which never existed.
Again, I'm very sure you didn't actually read the book, I highly recommend it though as well as the sequel "political order and political decay"
the reason why I'm calling you out so much here btw is because if you actually read the book for more than 20 pages you'll realize Fukuyama's fundamental thesis in the book is that things that liberal economists care (property rights and the legal system/tradition/rule of law/we you wanna call it) about don't matter as much as the "quality" of a state. He basically defines "quality" as how close a state's institutions approximate a modern bureaucracy with examinations and standardized procedures which renders decision making and policy implementation "impersonal" instead of traditional "patrimonial" (very personal/family based) organizations. The former is good and the latter is bad.
You can debate on whether his thesis is actually right or not but that is his basic thesis.
India has very weak rule of law and is a Democracy, Stalinist Russia industrialized with no rule of law at all. Deng era also China industrialized with very very weak rule of law.
I guess those countries are ASBs which never existed.
Again, I'm very sure you didn't actually read the book, I highly recommend it though as well as the sequel "political order and political decay"
Last edited:
Ironic, since Confucianism is far more influential in Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan, than Communist China.
RousseauX
Donor
that is true, also: Singapore (which China is actively trying to emulate) has something far closer approximating a multi-party democracy than the PRC does
Eh. I'll give it a whirl.
Though I wouldn't say individuality, let alone democracy, is coded in the Western world's cultural DNA exactly, considering the absolutist regimes that ruled there. More that the one great empire that did develop to envelop most of Europe sank from political instability, replaced by a bunch of competing nations. And thus the possibility of people neutral to those competing nations.
In China, well, there was also that. But I guess the problem is the cultural unity? Keep the Warring States of China divided, get more merchant princes like Lu Buwei to rise to power, have the realms of China splinter and expand.
Actually, I had this idea of the aftermath of career of Alexander the Great in Korea thing, and one of the effects was the mixing of Greek ideas into the maintained Chinese balance of powers. And the Central Plains become a patchwork of minor powers and Mohist-Taoist republics maintaining their independence from (or at least maintaining their position in the balance between) the kingdoms of Yan, Qin, and Cai (a Chu successor state).
MOHISM!
Mohist ideology of impartial justice onto all, with private Taoist leanings to keep the individuality.
Though I wouldn't say individuality, let alone democracy, is coded in the Western world's cultural DNA exactly, considering the absolutist regimes that ruled there. More that the one great empire that did develop to envelop most of Europe sank from political instability, replaced by a bunch of competing nations. And thus the possibility of people neutral to those competing nations.
In China, well, there was also that. But I guess the problem is the cultural unity? Keep the Warring States of China divided, get more merchant princes like Lu Buwei to rise to power, have the realms of China splinter and expand.
Actually, I had this idea of the aftermath of career of Alexander the Great in Korea thing, and one of the effects was the mixing of Greek ideas into the maintained Chinese balance of powers. And the Central Plains become a patchwork of minor powers and Mohist-Taoist republics maintaining their independence from (or at least maintaining their position in the balance between) the kingdoms of Yan, Qin, and Cai (a Chu successor state).
MOHISM!
Mohist ideology of impartial justice onto all, with private Taoist leanings to keep the individuality.
Is it, though? More states certainly means more chances for democratic government to form, but still, India did not really develop a Western definition of individuality despite being divided for much of its history.
RousseauX
Donor
Also if China never unifies or if the warring-states period goes on for another 3-500 years or so then pretty much all-bets are off. New schools of philosophies are very likely to pop up in those centuries and China might very well end up being united in the 200 ADs by some kind of a Republic where at least the elites gets to vote.
Maybe a roadblock to democratic ideas was the Chinese ideal of kingship. The Mandate of Heaven meant that any regime change would maintain the monarchy, and bad monarchs weren't stripped of power, but replaced by monarchs of equal power. Plus the centralized government meant that any status-seekers were drawn to the capital, rather than entrenched in their own fiefs and agitating for more local privileges- so Western definitions of liberty, as espoused by the propertied class were probably less likely to sprout up.
Napoleonrules
Banned
Excuse me! But your interpretation is incorrect and our being slanderous in saying I haven't read the book. Please quit it. You win no points in this forum with such horrible propaganda. This isn't a political election where you just keep spouting your falsehoods and people belief you or don't. There are common courtesy and expectations of being truthful. So please stop.
RousseauX
Donor
Japan had a democracy before the US occupation and the US propped up a dictatorship in South Korea
And before you start to say something like the military had an outsized role in Japanese democracy pre-1940s keep in mind the exact thing was true of Germany one of the heartlands of western civilization as well.
True. Although they still forced Japan in the open on the 1800's.
And Japan DID imitate the German model pre US occupation.
It would be interesting if Mohist political thought developed to the point that a kind of Chinese republicanism / democracy grew out of it. Recently discovered Confucian documents indicate that abdication of monarchs was a encouraged act and considered just, so absolutism is not that deeply ingrained in the Chinese political history I think.
If Mohist thinking did form the basis for ancient Chinese republicanism perhaps Interpreter or Sage could be titles for high ranking offices, the notion that the leaders are directly communing with Heaven but not a part of it or perhaps the notion of universal love somehow gets included in the titles, such as Interpreter of Empathy between Heaven and Man Xiong Qing.
Also I wonder if having an "ink marked master" would make the custom of tattooing more common in China.
I don't see why Mohism would make way for republicanism- the universal doctrine of love in Christianity didn't pave the way towards democracy, nor did Platonic thought with its focus on the enlightened monarch, strengthen republicanism- the focus is on rightly educated rulers, which only emphasizes the role of the monarch and central authority. The lack of a direct connection to heaven/the heavens does not prevent absolutism, either, c.f. various European monarchies.
From an economic side, there were plenty of opportunities for China to embrace much more classical liberal policies throughout many of its dynasties. A cursory reading of the Han, Tang, and Song dynasties will show that the idea of centralized control over the economy that those dynasties so often implemented was often debated, and there were many Confucian scholars in good standing that proposed ideas such as eliminating the government monopolies and even, at one point, licensing all the counterfeiters across the empire as private mints (!). If you ascribe to the idea (as I do) that economic liberty is necessary for political liberty, then here's a good starting point.
On the political side, you can make a solid argument that the Mandate of Heaven is, in many ways, a counterpart to the idea of the social contract, with many parallels. From that perspective, you could get something along the lines of Constitutional Monarchy in China, without toppling the Imperial system.
On the political side, you can make a solid argument that the Mandate of Heaven is, in many ways, a counterpart to the idea of the social contract, with many parallels. From that perspective, you could get something along the lines of Constitutional Monarchy in China, without toppling the Imperial system.