I was nextblogging, actually, when I came across this site, the China Desk Weblog. According to the site, the author, Bevin Chu,
He describes himself as a “market anarchist,” which translates to a permissive attitude towards markets, but he has some strong feelings about democracy. (From this post.)
At first I was a bit confused about the geopolitics of the situation, becuase - taking US-Latin America disputes as an example of a conflict that involves issues of colonialism and class - normally I’m used to debates over capitalism, while democracy is a given, even when people disagree about the approach. Here, Chu seems to be be bothered most by Taiwan’s democracy, though not by its also pretty open economic system.
My take on this is that “market anarchism” can clearly be considered hard right, but also that someone like this is clearly more approachable than someone who beleives in mixing politics with religion. At least here, there are certain basic precepts that we can all agree on, that you often won’t get in a debate with a religious fundamentalist.
“All elections are fradulent”. Fraud is there’s an outright lie about what’s going on. In a true election, the people cast votes, the votes are counted, and the candidate who wins the vote gets the office. What happens is exactly what the people believe will happen. If Chu believes there’s something morally wrong about this he’s welcome to say so, but he shouldn’t abuse the word “fradulent”.
Well, Dubya did say something like that after the last election, but then look what happened to his agenda. More generally, what’s he mean by repeating the phrase “elective dictators”? Dictators generally have a lifetime appointment, aren’t subject to impeachment, and aren’t limited by a constitution or other strict set of rules.
This metaphor seems a little bit off to me. I doubt any mother has ever bought such a toy while thinking, “Mwa ha ha! Now Junior will be fooled into thinking that he’s driving the car.” It’s a toy. Babies play with it because it’s colorful, it moves, and it looks vaguely like some real-life object that they frequently see.
I’m not so sure I agree with this. I don’t see any “basic precepts” in this post, though admittedly I they may be in other posts of his that I didn’t read. One builds a political philosophy by steps:
Decide what makes a morally sound society. In other words, state what your goal is.
Decide what threats that society faces, or what obstacles prevent the creation of that society.
Decide what government should do to defeat those threats or overcome those obstacles.
Decide what form of government is most likely to overcome those obstacles.
But Chu doesn’t go through this process; all he has is complaints about the current system. You cannot build up with complaints, you can only tear down. His vague pointers to anarchy fall short of being a case for anarchy, because he doesn’t have a clear goal.
Religious fundamentalists, by contrast, have a goal, so it would at least be possible do debate our goal vs. their goal.
In his classic book Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition, political scientist Robert Dahl showed a clear relationship between effective democracy or “polyarchy” (designed as a system where there are not only elections but they are actually contested, and there is sufficient press freedom for alternatives to be seriously debated) and enjoyment of personal liberties and civil rights.
I can’t work out whether he is a Taiwanese stooge or a PRC stooge.
Since I live in the UK, my jaundiced eye on the US electoral system leads me to a similar conclusion for both States
There is a self selected political class, they play musical chairs, they look after their own interests - which are closer to their ‘opponents’ than 99.9% of the electorate.
I don’t think that is a bad setup, it establishes a degree of continuity, virtually abolishes civil war and provides a mechanism for gradual change as mavericks are ‘elected’ and absorbed into the system.
That strikes me as pretty astute, but I would be nervous of sitting the kid behind the wheel of a Ferrari
with the kiddy steering wheel, if he hollers the direction changes, but under adult control.
While I despise our politicians, our populace makes them look like savants.
He could be an “anarchist” the same way Hitler was a “socialist.” I immediately started thinking he was a PRC stooge, although that’s not really fair. It really doesn’t matter who the guy is; it’s the ideas we’re supposed to evaluate, right?
I don’t know anyone who believes that democracy means representatives do the will of the people. They’re elected to use their best judgement about what how the government should act. If their judgement is found lacking, they get replaced. He seems to misunderstand how representative democracy works. The people aren’t supposed to drive the car, just choose the driver.
He seems to hint at some of the criticisms of the “Cult of Democracy,” but he never comes anywhere near a valid point. Free speech, equality before the law, the rule of law, limits on police powers, these are all things that make democracy functional. Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to argue that these are what we should try to foster in other countries, rather than democracy.
Mine did. You can’t imagine how stressful it was. I was constantly barking at my brothers and sisters, “Shut up, will you? I’m trying to concentrate! Can’t you see I could kill us all?”**
**Disclaimer: None of this is true. I never had a carseat, and I don’t believe I wore a seat belt until I was 8.
I can’t even find his politics, buried as they are under layer after layer of bitterness and cycnicism. He’s like the goth kid in the corner sneering at how meaningless life is and making sure everyone knows how little he cares about their opinion.
He’s definitely on the side of the PRC, just from which “dictatorship” he criticizes more. The fact that China isn’t actually a particularly capitalist country doesn’t really seem to register…
Chu doesn’t spell out his logic in proper sequential form or whatever, but he borrows a lot of rhetoric from leftist thought. Basically, instead of the rich get richer, the powerful get more powerful. He seems to be trying very hard to give the impression that it’s just a change in application, and the core utilitarian goals stay the same.
au contraire. China today is a living example of unbridled free for all capitalism all but overwheming the vestiges of a centralized state planned socialist command economy.
my wag is he is taiwanese disenchanted with the way the previous opposition party in power quickly succumed to corrupt family practices allowing the rich to get richer and squeezing out the rest of society. general failure to reform the structural problems iin the taiwan economy. don’t forget the magic bullet that reelected chen shui-bian.
last saturday there was also a mass protest in taipei.