The independent-minded are of the force that slows down and/or stops the mob, or that brings attention to a problem when groupthink is ignoring the problem. It is tough to be independent-minded, but also necessary to have those types to interrupt bad impulses. I'm one of them and I find it can make relations difficult for me in everyday life, but others have been thankful I'm around in certain situations. Human bonding is good until it leads to The Cultural Revolution and the torture and murder of up to 2 million people sacrificed as energy for that bonding.
Default western thinking now current--and for my entire boomer life, and doubtlessly earlier--has it that some form of democratically elected representation is best for all. Those who don't have it, yearn for it.
Yes it's a question that our current stage of hyper-liberalism in the Western world leads many thinking people to ask. But it's a hard question to answer....I for one don't have one. H L Menchen famously had his own dryly witty answer (one he arrived at100 years ago.... long before the hyper-liberal excesses that we boomers groan about!)
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
"The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don’t have to waste your time voting."
Democracy, as a practical matter, is basically an exercise in passing the buck, in avoiding responsibility. Everyone in power claims to answer to and derive their authority from someone else, going ultimately back to "the people" who themselves do not directly exercise power, and who would find it difficult to exercise as a collective action problem, even if they had the formal authority to do so. The technical term for this is a "beard".
What this means is that real power is often in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, who typically don't even want to stand for election because they don't want the voters to know what their programs are, much less to exercise any oversight. Robert Moses is the classic example here.
Even that minimal level of scrutiny is too much for some, and real power is often exercised by people not formally part of any government structure. Corporate lobbyists or Jeffrey Epstein come to mind.
There's a lot to digest here. But I'd like to make one point. You suggest that China's communistic success calls Western capitalism into question. No, it doesn't. Under Mao's rule, communism was a disaster, as it nearly always is. Once Mao was dead, Chinese leadership started to Westernize. It Westernized to the point of inviting Western capitalists into China to set up Western capitalistic production. Without that, China would still be a backward country, lost somewhere in the 18th century.
There's a bit of a misunderstanding here. I wasn't suggesting that China's success validates communism as an economic (or any other) model. My point was that China has managed to make capitalism work without multi-party democratic pluralism. But.....as you say, there's a lot to digest here.
Yes, the party system in either country is its own topic of conversation. I would question if the USA really has two parties, or just one party with two branches.
I should have pointed out that capitalism is not a synonym for free markets. Capitalism can and does exist in communist countries. But the combination of free markets and capitalism clearly provides the greatest wealth for everyone. There is typically far greater wealth disparity in a communist country than a free market country.
It is rather puzzling, to put it mildly, to see Russia, China, and Israel grouped in one sentence. Russia occupies 12% of the earth's land surface outside of Antarctica, and is grasping for more in at least 3 other countries. Russia and China together killed about 140 million people in the 20th century. In contrast, Israel, which holds 0.08% the total area of the Muslim-majority countries, is one of the few places on earth resisting the global jihad.
As to whether we should focus more on the West's internal saboteurs rather than on China, that is a false choice. Those internal saboteurs are trained by China, and funded by China-friendly parties.
In this essay I ask whether our default Western view of modern China is in need of some more open-minded interrogation. I offer no definitive answers but do offer some glimpses of what one can make out about its quality of life....short of actually going and living there.
For you it would seem, the default view is the correct one. It's a valid perspective and I won't argue with you on it. Apart from your implication that all our Western 'Progressive' 'woke' malaises (what I referred to as "the kind of people in the West who - whilst being succoured by its hyper- liberalism - are currently doing their very best to trash it?") are also China's fault? Really?
Yes, really. I know someone who has gone and lived there, indeed who grew up there and fled in horror: Mrs. Surak. She closely follows Chinese-language blogging by dissident Chinese. There is a serious influence operation run by China for decades, which has corrupted Western politicians, media, business, and academia. This is asymmetrical warfare, to take down the West from within without firing a shot. The original sin was the admission of the PRC to the WTO as MFN. China and Russia have never forsaken their long-term goal of subverting America, to replace it as global leaders, and they never will, making them good allies of the jihadists.
Do you not find it odd that during the recent campus protests and riots directed against Israel, a disproportionate number of student "leaders" were Chinese, and that others were trained by Chinese-funded groups?
For decades Chinese have been coming to America to have babies which are then returned to China to be trained as student activists in America. Cultural suicide is a real thing.
Your comment makes total sense except it leaves out the special and unique charge (if not thrill) that Jew hate gives people.
I used to believe Jew hate was the same as all other bigotries until 10/7 happened, but more specifically 10/8 and the orgy of joy that followed and that was so deeply deranged that it led even to the destruction of Israeli hostage posters—they hated these people so much that even being asked to briefly consider their suffering made them go wild with rage. Israelis are demons who deserved it and no other thought or feeling could be entertained.
Jew hate is different from other hatreds because it leads the hater (even sometimes unbeknowst to themselves) into more extreme and deranged forms of hatred, almost akin to a drug addiction: first they dislike Jews, then passionately hate them, then want to eliminate them, but even that's not enough, they must be dragged in the dirt and humiliated, all their sacred books and symbols dumped in the mud, made to grovel for their lives like in a Czarist pogrom.
Launching any crusade against Jews and their homeland will always bring all the world's most miserable and angry losers out of their holes, along with various other sadists and opportunists and of course Muslims (who REALLY hate Jews) and our campus Red Guard, who are always looking for an excuse to attack and destroy.
Israel has been surrounded by enemies since its birth and will be for the rest of our lives. There's something about Jews that drives people crazy and this is also something not new.
I am finally getting to this essay... Good stuff! Having just visited China personally in March (for 2.5 weeks no less, including traveling around Hainan in the south and Beijing, as well as three days in Taiwan, regardless of whether people think of it as "Chinese"...), I have developed a much more nuanced view of how the difference of cultures (individualist vs. collectivist) comes about, and how it interacts with other influences (primarily effortful vs. relative effortless resource availability). My strong hunch is that any culture that loses its "religious" (anxiety-coping and purpose providing) overlay on human behavior is at risk of sliding into some kind of becoming "consumed" by a mindset (or mind virus) that is, well, consumerist. China is just a bit late(r) to the game. Put differently, while resources (broadly construed) were scarce, the cultures of East and West and their differences provided a truly stark contrast. Once resource constraints are "optional" (people can choose to be "lazy" and still "get through the day" on a regular basis, without fearing to die from hunger or lack of shelter), the cultures (insofar as they are different initially) also seem to "approach" one another. That which allowed people of different cultures to get through their day in the face of incredibly harsh conditions is no longer a spiritual or attitudinal constraint, and it also no longer provides purpose (saving for a rainy day? what rain are we talking about?). Maybe some sort of composite culture will at some point emerge that is superior precisely because it is able to motivate people (and create superior outcomes) despite the already existing resource access...
"in a nutshell – the great strength of the Christianity+technological wizardry that took hold in the late 18th century also spawned a latent weakness."
Well said. Makes me think about the story of The Sorcerer's Apprentice.
A 'latent weakness' sounds similar to 'this mysterious limp' (cette claudication mysterieuse) as describe by De Lubac
"The recent Chinese economic miracle seems to have falsified the idea of the Western Protestant ethic and its free-market capitalist playing field as the only viable mechanism of wealth-creation." Well yes, the Chinese have demonstrated that one can also build a prosperous society via theft of intellectual property. That, and also organ harvesting from ethnic minorities and dissidents.
Given that I had just finished commenting on a Rational Optimists Society posting, glad you finished in that optimistic direction.
Couple of anecdotes related to "But might there actually be less to distinguish a Western vs a Chinese future than might at first seem?" Some years ago I had the opportunity to visit a NYC museum and check out a display of ancient Chinese (3000+ year old) bronze casting capability. Rather ahead of the West at that time? But today we also see photos of the CCP conclaves and they are all wearing Western style suits and attire, and promoting Western technology and infrastructure. So if the "Chinese civilization" is so great, [and the Han racialist attitude about their chauvinism and superiority is justified?] why not wear Chinese apparel? [Foot binding, anyone?] I suspect the best thing that could happen to China would be if the CCP was somehow broken up into 2 or 3 or 4 political parties, with their differences made public and debated, such that no party had complete power over the government. Certainly get rid of a life time appointment as emperor.
The economic rise you mention was really a copying of the capitalistic system, at least in part, was it not? But with the more "efficient" decision making and funding allocation of a dictatorship, vs. a republican debating society, when it came to decisions about eminent domain, infrastructure investments, etc. [and we now see even those decisions related to housing were poorly thought through or badly incentivized; where no real private sector investment banking or stock ownership portfolios were allowed] .
But it seems to me that most people - both West and East - end up humming some sort of 'party tune' and (in my experience anyway) 'independent-mindedness' is rather a rare thing in the human condition.
True. It makes it harder for those with conscience; Christians for example. Peaceful and respectful is not enough for the State. The Left here would do similar if they could, and have.
"Do we really need to get all adversarial towards China? Can’t we be a bit more ideologically fraternal?".
As far as the rulers of the West are concerned, yes. Since they cannot compete with China, they Americans and their british sidekicks will simply smash things up, rather than let anyone else replace their hegemony.
China simply wishes to sell things and make money. The Americans, by contrast, care only for power, domination and control.
The independent-minded are of the force that slows down and/or stops the mob, or that brings attention to a problem when groupthink is ignoring the problem. It is tough to be independent-minded, but also necessary to have those types to interrupt bad impulses. I'm one of them and I find it can make relations difficult for me in everyday life, but others have been thankful I'm around in certain situations. Human bonding is good until it leads to The Cultural Revolution and the torture and murder of up to 2 million people sacrificed as energy for that bonding.
Default western thinking now current--and for my entire boomer life, and doubtlessly earlier--has it that some form of democratically elected representation is best for all. Those who don't have it, yearn for it.
What if none of this is correct?
Yes it's a question that our current stage of hyper-liberalism in the Western world leads many thinking people to ask. But it's a hard question to answer....I for one don't have one. H L Menchen famously had his own dryly witty answer (one he arrived at100 years ago.... long before the hyper-liberal excesses that we boomers groan about!)
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
Charles Bukowski:
"The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don’t have to waste your time voting."
Democracy, as a practical matter, is basically an exercise in passing the buck, in avoiding responsibility. Everyone in power claims to answer to and derive their authority from someone else, going ultimately back to "the people" who themselves do not directly exercise power, and who would find it difficult to exercise as a collective action problem, even if they had the formal authority to do so. The technical term for this is a "beard".
What this means is that real power is often in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, who typically don't even want to stand for election because they don't want the voters to know what their programs are, much less to exercise any oversight. Robert Moses is the classic example here.
Even that minimal level of scrutiny is too much for some, and real power is often exercised by people not formally part of any government structure. Corporate lobbyists or Jeffrey Epstein come to mind.
There's a lot to digest here. But I'd like to make one point. You suggest that China's communistic success calls Western capitalism into question. No, it doesn't. Under Mao's rule, communism was a disaster, as it nearly always is. Once Mao was dead, Chinese leadership started to Westernize. It Westernized to the point of inviting Western capitalists into China to set up Western capitalistic production. Without that, China would still be a backward country, lost somewhere in the 18th century.
There's a bit of a misunderstanding here. I wasn't suggesting that China's success validates communism as an economic (or any other) model. My point was that China has managed to make capitalism work without multi-party democratic pluralism. But.....as you say, there's a lot to digest here.
Yes, the party system in either country is its own topic of conversation. I would question if the USA really has two parties, or just one party with two branches.
I should have pointed out that capitalism is not a synonym for free markets. Capitalism can and does exist in communist countries. But the combination of free markets and capitalism clearly provides the greatest wealth for everyone. There is typically far greater wealth disparity in a communist country than a free market country.
It is rather puzzling, to put it mildly, to see Russia, China, and Israel grouped in one sentence. Russia occupies 12% of the earth's land surface outside of Antarctica, and is grasping for more in at least 3 other countries. Russia and China together killed about 140 million people in the 20th century. In contrast, Israel, which holds 0.08% the total area of the Muslim-majority countries, is one of the few places on earth resisting the global jihad.
As to whether we should focus more on the West's internal saboteurs rather than on China, that is a false choice. Those internal saboteurs are trained by China, and funded by China-friendly parties.
China, Russia, and the jihadists are fighting the forever war that the West refuses to acknowledge: https://surak.substack.com/p/the-next-step-in-the-global-chess
In this essay I ask whether our default Western view of modern China is in need of some more open-minded interrogation. I offer no definitive answers but do offer some glimpses of what one can make out about its quality of life....short of actually going and living there.
For you it would seem, the default view is the correct one. It's a valid perspective and I won't argue with you on it. Apart from your implication that all our Western 'Progressive' 'woke' malaises (what I referred to as "the kind of people in the West who - whilst being succoured by its hyper- liberalism - are currently doing their very best to trash it?") are also China's fault? Really?
Yes, really. I know someone who has gone and lived there, indeed who grew up there and fled in horror: Mrs. Surak. She closely follows Chinese-language blogging by dissident Chinese. There is a serious influence operation run by China for decades, which has corrupted Western politicians, media, business, and academia. This is asymmetrical warfare, to take down the West from within without firing a shot. The original sin was the admission of the PRC to the WTO as MFN. China and Russia have never forsaken their long-term goal of subverting America, to replace it as global leaders, and they never will, making them good allies of the jihadists.
Do you not find it odd that during the recent campus protests and riots directed against Israel, a disproportionate number of student "leaders" were Chinese, and that others were trained by Chinese-funded groups?
For decades Chinese have been coming to America to have babies which are then returned to China to be trained as student activists in America. Cultural suicide is a real thing.
Your comment makes total sense except it leaves out the special and unique charge (if not thrill) that Jew hate gives people.
I used to believe Jew hate was the same as all other bigotries until 10/7 happened, but more specifically 10/8 and the orgy of joy that followed and that was so deeply deranged that it led even to the destruction of Israeli hostage posters—they hated these people so much that even being asked to briefly consider their suffering made them go wild with rage. Israelis are demons who deserved it and no other thought or feeling could be entertained.
Jew hate is different from other hatreds because it leads the hater (even sometimes unbeknowst to themselves) into more extreme and deranged forms of hatred, almost akin to a drug addiction: first they dislike Jews, then passionately hate them, then want to eliminate them, but even that's not enough, they must be dragged in the dirt and humiliated, all their sacred books and symbols dumped in the mud, made to grovel for their lives like in a Czarist pogrom.
Launching any crusade against Jews and their homeland will always bring all the world's most miserable and angry losers out of their holes, along with various other sadists and opportunists and of course Muslims (who REALLY hate Jews) and our campus Red Guard, who are always looking for an excuse to attack and destroy.
Israel has been surrounded by enemies since its birth and will be for the rest of our lives. There's something about Jews that drives people crazy and this is also something not new.
I went to your profile and left a bit disappointed that you haven't turned to writing your own Substack. You have what it takes!
Thanks! much appreciated!
I might just be more remora than shark, but who knows what the future holds.
Cheers
I am finally getting to this essay... Good stuff! Having just visited China personally in March (for 2.5 weeks no less, including traveling around Hainan in the south and Beijing, as well as three days in Taiwan, regardless of whether people think of it as "Chinese"...), I have developed a much more nuanced view of how the difference of cultures (individualist vs. collectivist) comes about, and how it interacts with other influences (primarily effortful vs. relative effortless resource availability). My strong hunch is that any culture that loses its "religious" (anxiety-coping and purpose providing) overlay on human behavior is at risk of sliding into some kind of becoming "consumed" by a mindset (or mind virus) that is, well, consumerist. China is just a bit late(r) to the game. Put differently, while resources (broadly construed) were scarce, the cultures of East and West and their differences provided a truly stark contrast. Once resource constraints are "optional" (people can choose to be "lazy" and still "get through the day" on a regular basis, without fearing to die from hunger or lack of shelter), the cultures (insofar as they are different initially) also seem to "approach" one another. That which allowed people of different cultures to get through their day in the face of incredibly harsh conditions is no longer a spiritual or attitudinal constraint, and it also no longer provides purpose (saving for a rainy day? what rain are we talking about?). Maybe some sort of composite culture will at some point emerge that is superior precisely because it is able to motivate people (and create superior outcomes) despite the already existing resource access...
Very interesting thoughts... and with much overlap with my own. Thank you Jochen.
"in a nutshell – the great strength of the Christianity+technological wizardry that took hold in the late 18th century also spawned a latent weakness."
Well said. Makes me think about the story of The Sorcerer's Apprentice.
A 'latent weakness' sounds similar to 'this mysterious limp' (cette claudication mysterieuse) as describe by De Lubac
"The recent Chinese economic miracle seems to have falsified the idea of the Western Protestant ethic and its free-market capitalist playing field as the only viable mechanism of wealth-creation." Well yes, the Chinese have demonstrated that one can also build a prosperous society via theft of intellectual property. That, and also organ harvesting from ethnic minorities and dissidents.
Given that I had just finished commenting on a Rational Optimists Society posting, glad you finished in that optimistic direction.
Couple of anecdotes related to "But might there actually be less to distinguish a Western vs a Chinese future than might at first seem?" Some years ago I had the opportunity to visit a NYC museum and check out a display of ancient Chinese (3000+ year old) bronze casting capability. Rather ahead of the West at that time? But today we also see photos of the CCP conclaves and they are all wearing Western style suits and attire, and promoting Western technology and infrastructure. So if the "Chinese civilization" is so great, [and the Han racialist attitude about their chauvinism and superiority is justified?] why not wear Chinese apparel? [Foot binding, anyone?] I suspect the best thing that could happen to China would be if the CCP was somehow broken up into 2 or 3 or 4 political parties, with their differences made public and debated, such that no party had complete power over the government. Certainly get rid of a life time appointment as emperor.
The economic rise you mention was really a copying of the capitalistic system, at least in part, was it not? But with the more "efficient" decision making and funding allocation of a dictatorship, vs. a republican debating society, when it came to decisions about eminent domain, infrastructure investments, etc. [and we now see even those decisions related to housing were poorly thought through or badly incentivized; where no real private sector investment banking or stock ownership portfolios were allowed] .
China is great if you don’t mind reliably humming the Party tune. Deviate and life deteriorates rapidly.
Yes, that was kind of my point really.
But it seems to me that most people - both West and East - end up humming some sort of 'party tune' and (in my experience anyway) 'independent-mindedness' is rather a rare thing in the human condition.
True. It makes it harder for those with conscience; Christians for example. Peaceful and respectful is not enough for the State. The Left here would do similar if they could, and have.
"Do we really need to get all adversarial towards China? Can’t we be a bit more ideologically fraternal?".
As far as the rulers of the West are concerned, yes. Since they cannot compete with China, they Americans and their british sidekicks will simply smash things up, rather than let anyone else replace their hegemony.
China simply wishes to sell things and make money. The Americans, by contrast, care only for power, domination and control.
Projection