Many have characterized the competition between these two giants as a clash between democracy and authoritarianism. But this is false. America and China view their political systems in fundamentally different ways: whereas America sees democratic government as an end in itself, China sees its current form of government, or any political system for that matter, merely as a means to achieving larger national ends.
It began with the European Enlightenment. Two fundamental ideas were at its core: the individual is rational, and the individual is endowed with inalienable rights. These two beliefs formed the basis of a secular faith in modernity, of which the ultimate political manifestation is democracy.
In its early days, democratic ideas in political governance facilitated the industrial revolution and ushered in a period of unprecedented economic prosperity and military power in the Western world. Yet at the very beginning, some of those who led this drive were aware of the fatal flaw embedded in this experiment and sought to contain it.
The American Federalists made it clear they were establishing a republic, not a democracy, and designed myriad means to constrain the popular will. But as in any religion, faith would prove stronger than rules.
The West’s current competition with China is therefore not a face-off between democracy and authoritarianism, but rather the clash of two fundamentally different political outlooks. The modern West sees democracy and human rights as the pinnacle of human development. It is a belief premised on an absolute faith.
...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.
The fundamental difference between Washington’s view and Beijing’s is whether political rights are considered God-given and therefore absolute or whether they should be seen as privileges to be negotiated based on the needs and conditions of the nation.
The West seems incapable of becoming less democratic even when its survival may depend on such a shift. In this sense, America today is similar to the old Soviet Union, which also viewed its political system as the ultimate end.
History does not bode well for the American way. Indeed, faith-based ideological hubris may soon drive democracy over the cliff.
What do you think? Necessitas legem non habet. Is democracy an end in itself or merely the means to an end? If it is the latter, do you consider it a solid rule of thumb that democracy is necessary to the achievement of that end?
Democracy sure is an impediment, but it's one I wouldn't do without.
I don't think it's really a difference of pragmatism vs. ideology. It's more that there are different ideologies which determine which ends to pursue, and at its heart it's the difference between individualism and collectivism.
I don't think it's really a difference of pragmatism vs. ideology. It's more that there are different ideologies which determine which ends to pursue, and at its heart it's the difference between individualism and collectivism.
I don't think it's a question of ideology vs. pragmatism either, which is why the thread is titled "The ideology of pragmatism". And I think the questions asked in the OP are good starting points, so before further categorising the ideologies of the two sides as various -isms and immediately making this more complicated, why don't we start by answering the questions?
whereas America sees democratic government as an end in itself, China sees its current form of government, or any political system for that matter, merely as a means to achieving larger national ends.
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..
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.)
I'm not sure about the generalisations that Lee makes when he talks about "America" and "China". I'm highly sceptical that the economic and political elites (in a very broad sense) are consistent in sharing the same a priori dedication to liberal democratic government that the average citizen does, so you could just as easily argue that a show of democratism is a precisely pragmatic position to take when the majority of the population are poorly disposed to any other. I think that this can be seen more easily if you look at European democracies in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when democracy was similarly regarded as a means to an end. If there's a real difference, it's that the Western elites have developed a greater faith in the efficiency of democratic political structures as a means to their desired ends. "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried" and all that.
Democracy sure is an impediment, but it's one I wouldn't do without.
I don't think it's really a difference of pragmatism vs. ideology. It's more that there are different ideologies which determine which ends to pursue, and at its heart it's the difference between individualism and collectivism.
I think that Chinese state ideology is better understood as a form of integralism than as collectivist, in the proper sense of the word. "Collectivism" implies certain concrete structures rather than just an abstract ideology of national unity, and that's really not present in China any more. That's exactly why they're capable of pursuing the "ideology of pragmatism" that Aelf talks about, something which Mao and his ilk were blatantly incapable of doing.
An "end in itself"-attitude is in itself of course nonsense, intellectual laziness as every political ideology provides. However, when put into context, it simply serves the function to culturally ensure the endurance of democracy. Which means as long as democracy is also a viable means to an desired end, it is useful to view it as an end in itself to ensure its endurance. And this logic applies to every political system. China just as much seeks to ideological entrench its political system as the West does. Thats how legitimacy is established - by culturally entrenching it into the hearts and minds of the people.
Which brings me to my second point: The article compares apples and oranges. The apple is how legitimacy is established, which as just explained applies to the US and China likewise. And as Leoreth correctly noted could be labeled an individualistic (US) vs a collective (China) legitimizing ideology.
The orange is how the political systems behind those ideologies actually work out. And yes, in this sense I think it is fair to say that China is more pragmatic. Because it has not this great need to sell its policies based on idealogical talking points as the US does, because, you know, it is not a democracy and isn't actually critically followed by the media. And in that sense, it very much is a clash of democratic vs. authoritarian (no matter what authoritarian founding father might have said ).
For more info on the relationship of Republics and Democracies (and how it is often not understood at all), I'll attach this post I made last year:
Spoiler:
In the hopes to clear up some confusion: The truth about the term "Republic" and "Democracy"
First "Republic" is quit an ambiguous term with different meanings when used by different people. But there are some traits which are quit commonly acknowledged and I think the following 4 traits of a Republic sufficiently rap it up:
1. A Republic is no monarchy
2. A Republic's main concern is the common good
3. A Republic is not despotism
4. A Republic has no arbitrary rule, ensured by the rule of law
It is not unheard of that people take issue with the third point, and possibly with the 4th, but the first and second are to my knowledge universally accepted and the third and fourth commonly enough to treat them as a rule.
Now I think there is not much debate caused by the first three points. The confusion is rather caused by the fourth point. "No arbitrary rule". One can also call it "tyranny" and other things. Let's stick to tyranny, because it nicely fits the term "tyranny of the majority". And if a Republic excludes tyranny, it will in deed logically also exclude tyranny of the majority. Just as it excludes the tyranny of a despot or a junta.
The thing now is, that said tyranny of the majority is linked to democracy in a very dishonest and/or ignorant way by the American far right. Because democracy can mean such a tyranny, but certainly does not have to and as a matter of fact does not do so anywhere in the present world.
I mentioned the rule of law as a means to prevent tyranny, And that is the crux of it. It doesn't matter if you apply this rule of law on a democracy or on a oligarchy. In both cases it will prevent tyranny - theoretically anyway. And in no way is the rule of law something that stands in contrast to democracy. It stands in contrast to tyranny, which you can have making use of democracy, or making use of any other possibility to organize power.
So if democracy doesn't equal tyranny of the majority, what is democracy? General speaking, democracy means that power needs the will of the people to be legitimized. There is a lot more to be said about this term, but this rough summarizing shall suffice for my next point.
Which is the question: So is the US a democracy? And here comes the answer: Yes it is! Because any position of state authority depends over a long chain of ranks and branches in the end on whom the people give their vote. All power ultimately rest with the people, even though if in this case in a very indirect way (as is the case with most present democracies for them being Representative Democracies).
The legislative body - heads elected by the people. The executive body - head elected by the people. The judicial body, heads determined by the legislative and executive body, so by institutions which have been elected by the people. So in the end also the judicial body relies on the people's will.
This is Representative democracy at works gentlemen. If you don't realize this, you don't know a crap about democracy in the first place.
So as a final conclusion, I would like to sum up that:
(A) Republic defines the purpose of the state (common good) and vaguely how that purpose shall be pursued (making use of the rule of law)
(B) Democracy describes a way to distribute power (the people's will as necessary legitimization)
(C) (A) and (B) refer to different aspects of a state which can either harmonize, or stand in contrast to each other or anything in between (hint: In modern history they have most of all harmonized)
So all in all I think it is a rather stupid article.
But to nevertheless pick up on the in deed present greater pragmatic orientation in China - Now makes that China "better"? Well it allows it to more efficiently set itself goals, because those goals can better focus on what actually is tried to be achieved instead of catering to public images and accordingly, it has greater leeway to peruse those goals. However, most of what makes China so strong isn't rooted in its political system, but in socio-economic factors. It has decent land and resources and the biggest population in the world as well as a tradition of a functioning bureaucracy - it is supposed to flourish and be rich one could say and it is hard to judge how much its political system really can claim credit. A functioning democracy might have been just as good. Though the emphasize lies on functioning. And that is not a given. As it is, its authoritarian undemocratic system is functional and it IMO would be outright foolish to hastily trade that against an insecure democratic future at this point. But at some point - when things are fairly stable and the functionality of such a democracy can be safely assumed, China will IMO probably be better for it.
To stick with the functionality of political systems: a dysfunctional democracy surely is inferior to a functional undemocratic regime and conversely. Meaning it is IMO mostly silly to speak of inherent qualities of democratic vs undemocratic systems. It is rather a matter of the functionality of any such system.
The articles displays a naivety which would be amusing were it not so widespread and dangerous. The CCP has secured its position by allowing a capitalist economy to grow and intertwine itself with the state system. What China is now experiencing is the growth of a ruling class composed of wealthy capitalists and their willing accomplices in government - a symbiotic relationship which is the very model of political corruption in the modern state. To counter such corruption, liberal democratic systems have electoral accountability, free speech, free association, separation of powers, judicial independence, and the rule of law. The Chinese system has no such checks. If we're talking about which political system is more grounded on faith than pragmatism, I'd start with the one which asks its people to take the continued competence and benevolence of its leaders on trust alone.
Governments do the bidding of those that control it in the best way possible and in that aspect, every government serves a pragmatic purpose to advance the interests of those who control it. The question is not whether a certain type of government is better than the other, but whose interests are more easier to maintain in the long run.
Oh dear. I've read many things about China, America, Democracy and Liberalism that have been rather wide of the mark, but this is the first that actually puts them all onto the same page.
The articles displays a naivety which would be amusing were it not so widespread and dangerous. The CCP has secured its position by allowing a capitalist economy to grow and intertwine itself with the state system. What China is now experiencing is the growth of a ruling class composed of wealthy capitalists and their willing accomplices in government - a symbiotic relationship which is the very model of political corruption in the modern state. To counter such corruption, liberal democratic systems have electoral accountability, free speech, free association, separation of powers, judicial independence, and the rule of law. The Chinese system has no such checks. If we're talking about which political system is more grounded on faith than pragmatism, I'd start with the one which asks its people to take the continued competence and benevolence of its leaders on trust alone.
Isn't posing non-accountable government as "corrupt" by definition begging the question somewhat? It seems to assume accountability as the "vanilla" form of the state, from which the Chinese system is necessarily a divergence, rather that simply constituting one form among many. You could certainly argue that accountability is the interests of "the nation", as some organic collective, but that doesn't actually imply that it's in the interests of the nation-state, a discrete political formation, and that's what's being meant when we discuss "pragmatism". To talk about "faith in leadership", as if the majority of the Chinese population are actually consulted at any point, seems to be about as naive as you accuse Lee of being.
It's highly dubious to attribute China's rise to genius management. China started this rise with a culture that values work, education, and financial success, and with a country with plenty of material resources. And in a world with lots of more-advanced technology to borrow. All they had to do is - how shall I euphemize this - stop fumbling up, and a meteoric rise was basically inevitable.
If there's a real difference, it's that the Western elites have developed a greater faith in the efficiency of democratic political structures as a means to their desired ends. "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried" and all that.
This, so very much. America is the land of William James, Charles Sanders Peirce, and John Dewey - you know, Pragmatism? And that (perhaps unlike "democracy" ) is not just a label slapped on where it doesn't belong.
And how "useful" is political freedom (free speech, a voice in government decisions, etc.)? Useful for what? One obvious question is whether people are happier. Not that this is the only measure, but it sure makes more obvious sense than being richer just for the sake of having more stuff. And the answer is yes, at least in rich countries, political freedoms improve happiness. If Western countries are "pragmatic", and since they're obviously rich, then political freedoms are "useful."
Democracy is a wonderful way of maintaining the legitimacy of government. *When* it is set up correctly, there isn't a better system of government. Or to put it differently, a well-made democracy is far superior to the well-made forms of the "alternative" models of government.
Unfortunately, it is very easy for a democracy to degenerate when you don't take a good care of it, or when you've started out wrong. Both of these things have happened in my country, and it isn't a pretty sight. Still, compared to what we had here before, it's heaven on Earth.
I think that you're confusing natural and legal rights. "God-given rights" denotes a broadly Lockean conception of "natural rights", rather than any particular set of legal entitlements.
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.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
).
) is not just a label slapped on where it doesn't belong.
