The ideology of pragmatism

warpus said:

I don't think democracy or human rights should ever be curtailed in the face of "larger national goals", but one thing China has right that the U.S. doesn't is that their country is ran by scientists and engineers and that those guys actually *have* "larger national goals" and a national vision. In the U.S. everything happens in 4 year cycles and national goals are an afterthought to ideology and political left vs right battles... (This is true to varying extents in other western nations, but we were talking about the U.S.)

Not only that, there is a depressing air of anti-intellectualism in the U.S., which you won't see in China.

It really seems to me that, when it comes to the actual government, in the U.S. it is often the case of "What does our ideology tell us to do?" or "What will get me elected?" but in China it is moreso "What is better for the country as a whole?" and "What has worked in the past and what does science tell us about this thing we are about to try?".

Now if someone could combine that pragmatism with democracy and human rights somehow..

Click to expand...

This. That would be my take of things.

@Murky
While what you say has a certain truth, you seem to fail to realize the different "levels" of ideology. As contradictory as it may seem, in principle favoring pragmatism over an ideological approach is an ideology in itself. Just as denouncing faith in the supernatural is its own kind of faith (just a better founded one).

Why are we assuming anything China does is pragmatic?

Because otherwise the word "pragmatic" would probably be meaningless? A quit silly question.

Yes, your question is silly.

No, it would simply mean they are not practicing it and the example in the OP article is BS.

The simple fact is China has as many ideological motivations as the West. More powerful ones actually since their system is based on denying alternate ideologies to compete.

Then of course there is the other assumption, that the democratic choice is not a pragmatic one.

I'm with Patroklos on this one.

I think Mario Monti's government is closer to what the OP describes. Where democracy has had be pushed away in favour of pragmatism.

Patroklos said:

Yes, your question is silly.

No, it would simply mean they are not practicing it and the example in the OP article is BS.

The simple fact is China has as many ideological motivations as the West. More powerful ones actually since their system is based on denying alternate ideologies to compete.

Then of course there is the other assumption, that the democratic choice is not a pragmatic one.

Click to expand...

Pragmatism is very scientific in nature - you examine data, see what worked in the past, and base your actions around that.

American politicians don't seem to do that. They base their actions around ideology. The "facts on the ground" don't matter so much.

Now, that is a huge generalization, and I don't really mean to paint China in a light of awesomeness.. because they are not. But they are far more pragmatic than the U.S.

SiLL said:

@Murky
While what you say has a certain truth, you seem to fail to realize the different "levels" of ideology. As contradictory as it may seem, in principle favoring pragmatism over an ideological approach is an ideology in itself. Just as denouncing faith in the supernatural is its own kind of faith (just a better founded one).

Click to expand...

Pragmatism is a methodology not an ideology. It the result of trial and error, and not being dogmatic about sticking to a certain ideology or framework. It is thinking outside the box to come up with new ideas and innovations that work.

China's model superior? Having thousands of officials lying on official data to the point that nobody knows for sure the state of the economy isn't superiority.

warpus said:

There are always politics, but that doesn't really detract from my point.

Click to expand...

Well yes, they have just as much fighting as we do here, between hardliners, progressives, etc. It's just not as apparent because the state controls everything.

They just like to put the image out their that they're strong and unified, because honestly, as of now, that's their only national goal.

Patroklos said:

No, it would simply mean they are not practicing it and the example in the OP article is BS.

Click to expand...

Your question was why anything China does should be pragmatic. Point being, if anything China does is not pragmatic, then virtually nothing is. Which is a silly way to deal with the word pragmatic.

Patroklos said:

The simple fact is China has as many ideological motivations as the West. More powerful ones actually since their system is based on denying alternate ideologies to compete.

Click to expand...

You seem to confuse legitimacy with hard policy.

Patroklos said:

Then of course there is the other assumption, that the democratic choice is not a pragmatic one.

Click to expand...

The assumption is rather that the democratic choice is heavily swayed by idealogical values and talking points rather than sober analyzing. Which is kind of undeniable.

Murky said:

Pragmatism is a methodology not an ideology. It the result of trial and error, and not being dogmatic about sticking to a certain ideology or framework. It is thinking outside the box to come up with new ideas and innovations that work.

Click to expand...

Yes. But you seemingly didn't understand a word I said.
I didn't argue that pragmatism itself is an ideology. What I said is that this "methodology" can be made use of in an ideological fashion - as can anything.

gangleri2001 said:

China's model superior? Having thousands of officials lying on official data to the point that nobody knows for sure the state of the economy isn't superiority.

Click to expand...

"Nobody", really? How about just those that actually vest the political power to act upon those?

Murky said:

Weird title. Pragmatist is practically the opposite of ideologue. A pragmatist says, "If it works, it's right." An ideologue says there's only one right way to do it, which must strictly adhere to a certain ideology.

Click to expand...

Ah, but that's just the thing.

As I see it, the very essence of pragmatism is the maxim that is stated in the OP: Necessitas legem non habet (necessity has no law). I think most people here would agree with that maxim and its implications - that where the necessity arises, whatever ideological tenets and whatever laws you have should be cast aside in the service of the ends of ideology or law. Let's call this 'true' pragmatism.

I think that's what the CCP has been doing. In order to achieve the ends of its ideology (creating a strong and enlightened society based on Chinese Communist values or whatever), it is willing to embrace methods that are even contrary to what its ideology might seem to prescribe, including adopting a broadly market-oriented approach in its economic policy. In that sense it is being 'truly' pragmatic.

However, what we see in the article is an articulation of something slightly different - pragmatism itself is becoming enshrined in the ideology of the party. The exception is becoming the rule. It becomes more important that party does whatever is necessary to the achievement of its current goals than that it is committed to achieving whatever ends its ideology might originally have. Thus, they no longer worship at the altar of Communism, but at that of pragmatism. Pragmatism has been made an end in itself.

That is what the ideology of pragmatism means.

Traitorfish said:

Isn't posing non-accountable government as "corrupt" by definition begging the question somewhat?

Click to expand...

It might be, but I didn't say anything like that. This isn't about some imaginary archetype, it's about a real-world state in which corruption is already a huge issue, and in which the political system contains nothing to prevent that corruption from growing ever worse in the years ahead. It's not for nothing that anti-corruption has been a key tenet of pro-democracy movements around the world (especially in recent years).

...China’s leaders would not hesitate to curtail those freedoms if the conditions and the needs of the nation changed... The resulting stability ushered in a generation of growth and prosperity that propelled China’s economy to its position as the second largest in the world.

Click to expand...

And China's economic growth is directed towards.....what, exactly?

Is it growth and prosperity for its own sake? i.e. plain old basic greed? Or is it merely a means to an end? What end? The United States put its strong economy towards the happiness and safety of its citizens. Why is China doing it? World conquest?

Whether an ideology is superior is determined by what the end goal is.

Murky said:

Weird title. Pragmatist is practically the opposite of ideologue. A pragmatist says, "If it works, it's right." An ideologue says there's only one right way to do it, which must strictly adhere to a certain ideology.

Click to expand...

The very conception of a given model of government as "working" and therefore being "right" is necessarilly constructed within an ideological framework to begin with. If it was purely detached and objective, a simple comment on the efficiency or cohesiveness of any model, then it wouldn't suggest any politics because you would attribute no value to either efficiency or cohesion. It would be like commenting on a chemical or celluar structure: there would be no "should", just an "is".

Winston Hughes said:

It might be, but I didn't say anything like that. This isn't about some imaginary archetype, it's about a real-world state in which corruption is already a huge issue, and in which the political system contains nothing to prevent that corruption from growing ever worse in the years ahead. It's not for nothing that anti-corruption has been a key tenet of pro-democracy movements around the world (especially in recent years).

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I guess I was misinterpreting you.

A pragmatic government is one that pursues policies that work irrespective of public opinion.

China's government pursues policies which do not "work" (assuming one believes prosperity and freedom are the end goal), such as police brutality, suppression of ethnic minorities, endemic corruption at every level of government and denying virtually all rights and entitlements including education and healthcare to millions of migrants from the countryside.

The positive results which are apparently supposed to justify the CCP's dictatorship result from foreign investment, foreign expertise and the hard work of the Chinese people, not the actions of the state.

~Corsair#01~ said:

A pragmatic government is one that pursues policies that work irrespective of public opinion.

China's government pursues policies which do not "work" (assuming one believes prosperity and freedom are the end goal), such as police brutality, suppression of ethnic minorities, endemic corruption at every level of government and denying virtually all rights and entitlements including education and healthcare to millions of migrants from the countryside.

The positive results which are apparently supposed to justify the CCP's dictatorship result from foreign investment, foreign expertise and the hard work of the Chinese people, not the actions of the state.

Click to expand...

Eh? The bolded stuff can indeed be considered policies that the Chinese government pursues. But the rest?

~Corsair#01~ said:

A pragmatic government is one that pursues policies that work irrespective of public opinion.

China's government pursues policies which do not "work" (assuming one believes prosperity and freedom are the end goal), such as police brutality, suppression of ethnic minorities, endemic corruption at every level of government and denying virtually all rights and entitlements including education and healthcare to millions of migrants from the countryside.

The positive results which are apparently supposed to justify the CCP's dictatorship result from foreign investment, foreign expertise and the hard work of the Chinese people, not the actions of the state.

Click to expand...

And that's the tricky bit. The Chinese elite, evidently, do not.

warpus said:

I don't think democracy or human rights should ever be curtailed in the face of "larger national goals", but one thing China has right that the U.S. doesn't is that their country is ran by scientists and engineers and that those guys actually *have* "larger national goals" and a national vision. In the U.S. everything happens in 4 year cycles and national goals are an afterthought to ideology and political left vs right battles... (This is true to varying extents in other western nations, but we were talking about the U.S.)

Not only that, there is a depressing air of anti-intellectualism in the U.S., which you won't see in China.

Click to expand...

I disagree with your "china has a vision" comment. I've heard about this before, "china operates in 40 year cycles", "china has a plan for each century" and all this; it's nonsense. One example - the impending demographic crisis caused by the one child policy. That demonstrates a distinct lack of the long term planning you value the Chinese for.

aelf said:

Eh? The bolded stuff can indeed be considered policies that the Chinese government pursues. But the rest?

Click to expand...

By the rest I guess you mean police brutality and endemic corruption... obviously these are not official policies of the Chinese government per se but they are the inevitable result of a system of government in which free speech is suppressed and criticism of the government is considered treason.

And make no mistake that the Chinese system is both totalitarian and massively corrupt, which is my main point. The so-called pragmatic policies of the Chinese government do not produce results, except the perpetual keeping of the ruling elite in power. China's economic success is in spite of its government and not because of it. Taiwan enjoys a far better economy while maintaining a more or less constitutional democracy.