Yes the topic is big, it's controversial. And no I am not exactly declaring the defeat of Capitalistic Democracy with personal conviction. Ever since I was about 5 or 6 years old, until 2003... or let's say December 2004 when Dubya was re-elected... I held a pretty absolute faith in Democracy and Capitalism. The Christmas Day event and the aftermath is pushing this philosophical belief to the test...

Even the economic rise of Communist China, not just out of poverty, but into prosperity, only shakes that faith slightly. Ok, so authoritarian rule and central economy planning is not DOOMED to disastrous failure. In a way, that's not Earth shattering, we all knew that benevolent dictatorships were not uncommon in 3000+ years of Chinese history. There was still no evidence to doubt democracy and free market to be the most optimal system in the long run.

But now You-know-who is starting to deconstruct my religion. A small group of madmen, cavemen, salvage beasts (figuratively speaking, I actually have tremendous respect for real salvage beasts: bears, hyenas, sharks, rats anyway I digress) these people for whom I have absolutely no sympathy, are taking apart not just the Anglo-Christian hegemony, but actually ... well I have to recycle that word... they actually deconstructed my life-long faith in Capitalism and Democracy.

That's not to say I now think that Democracy and/or Market Economy are BAD. But I can no longer accept these ideologies as The Ultimate Ideal. Put it in another way, Democracy and Market Economy, along with the sundry axillary ideals: human rights, freedom of expression, pursuit of happiness etc are NEITHER NECESSARY NOR SUFFICIENT FOR GOOD.

So ok I am not exactly providing a lot of (or any) supporting arguments. But I don't want to do that with a first post. I just want to open the topic and see where it goes. Fire away...

Ding,

It sounds like you are about to turn from ideologist into a
pragmatist.

I became a pragmatist a long while ago. It is not
that I don't value social political structures and systems,
but I just believe all systems need to be alive to
survive. All static system will lead to stagnation.
(The second law of thermal dynamics)

Every system has its merits, and limitations.

China's political system today is very unique. It is basically
a meritocracy. It is maybe a dictatorship in terms
it does not allow political oppositions. But a politically aspired person could become a president if he is wise and
lucky. It is not a democracy, but it represents people
far better than any alternatives I know of today.

However, I think the current system will run into its
limitations as time goes by, like any other systems.
Humen are too clever, we will find ways to abuse any
system, to make it dysfunctional.

However, I think the current system will run into its
limitations as time goes by, like any other systems.
Humen are too clever, we will find ways to abuse any
system, to make it dysfunctional.

I concur with both gentlemen on the listed ideas, far from universal truth and the current Chinese system may eventual fall into stagnant state of corruption like any other system. The third one I would like to add here is that we should look for answers in Chinese long history, in addition to the west, either present or past.

ATol has an upcoming article that looks relevant to this discussion, and which I hope you find interesting. Here's the opening paragraph:

"The coexistence of a gigantic bureaucratic State with an overall social plasticity and transformation whose scale has no equivalent in the world history is an apparent paradox which puzzles the observer of the Chinese society. In other words, why is China so comfortable with change while Western democracies are dangerously lacking the capacity to question their assumptions and could be, in the long term, threatened by immobilism, inertia and self-complacency?"

The author goes on to compare the Chinese game of weiqi (better known to Westerners by its Japanese name, 'go' ) to chess. Weiqi is fluid, chess is linear, he writes, and therein lies a clue to understanding the differences between the Western and Chinese systems. But I oversimplify ...

As promised, here it is:
-
atimes.com: www.atimes.com/atimes/China/LA06Ad03.html
_
atimes.net: www.atimes.net/China/weiqi-a-symbol-of-t...nese-experience.html

I've opened a new thread for discussion related to the article, and would love to hear from you. The thread is here:

www.atimes.net/The-Edge/Greater-China/17...nese-experience.html

It's a bit of distraction to bring China in this discussion. Yes it's one data point: some authoritarian countries are acting more decisively and wisely than many democratic countries.

But I think the real focus isn't these benevolent dictatorships, the point is on the democracies.

A. is it correct to claim that countries based on the capitalistic democracy system are failing systematically? I think it does look that way, but it's definitely debatable.

B. if the above is accepted, that democratic countries are failing systemic in the face of You-know-who's attack. Now can we take this observation and generalize it to declare the capitalist democracy ideology as a thing of history, along with feudalism and Marxism/Leninism?