On Sino-American convergence
It has come to our attention that China's quiet shelving of Marxism has become even more glaringly obvious. Specifically, in new history textbooks for Shanghai:
This is no small matter. Public education is a terrific shaper of the human spirit, and China knows this as well as anyone. All right then, what do they see fit to put in its place? Democracy? Populism? Libertarianism? Of course not. Instead:
For a history textbook, says the article, it neglects discussion of the past and instead trains its readers to look toward to the future. Now, this lack of focus on ideology accords very well with the general modern interpretation of China. Now that Communism is nothing more than a state ritual, the regime works on the understanding that if the economy grows, the people won't care enough about the lack of democracy (or indeed any deeper principles) to revolt, as long as they keep getting richer, or at least better off.
Oh, those silly Chinese! That could never happen here!
In fact, this is not very different from what America's underminers would have it become. And ingeniously, it may work even without the "prosperity" part.
Just as the Chinese may soon all be taught to discount public policy as a force whose actions have consequences and need moral justification, and to discuss economic forces as if they were physical constants, to be adapted to but not changed for the better, so Americans have been taught since the mid-70's of the futility of government "intervention." Government was turned by hordes of two-bit paid scribblers into "big government," which instead of assuring citizens proper standards of living, was dragging them into the dirt.
Tellingly, this did not translate into broad cuts to the welfare state -- though this bastardized libertarianism would sometimes turn its gaze to programs actually affecting the middle class, the people made their will clear that such-and-such a program specifically was doing good (Social Security) and should not be tampered with. But the forcible redefining of our national discourse choked off of anything new or innovative that did not fall under the banner of "pro-business policy," and withered our ability to say for ourselves what was best for us.
The result is that now, voters know very well they have not gotten a fair shake in a long while, and yet large numbers of them don't connect this to their vote. Why should they, when economic difficulties are the way of the world, and government never solves anything?
Thus both America and China stave off rebellion by weakening their people's ability to point the finger of blame.
Socialism has been reduced to a single, short chapter in the senior high school history course. Chinese communism prior to economic reform in 1979 is covered in a sentence.
This is no small matter. Public education is a terrific shaper of the human spirit, and China knows this as well as anyone. All right then, what do they see fit to put in its place? Democracy? Populism? Libertarianism? Of course not. Instead:
...ideas and buzzwords that dominate the state-run media and official discourse: economic growth, innovation, foreign trade, political stability, respect for diverse cultures and social harmony.
For a history textbook, says the article, it neglects discussion of the past and instead trains its readers to look toward to the future. Now, this lack of focus on ideology accords very well with the general modern interpretation of China. Now that Communism is nothing more than a state ritual, the regime works on the understanding that if the economy grows, the people won't care enough about the lack of democracy (or indeed any deeper principles) to revolt, as long as they keep getting richer, or at least better off.
Oh, those silly Chinese! That could never happen here!
In fact, this is not very different from what America's underminers would have it become. And ingeniously, it may work even without the "prosperity" part.
Just as the Chinese may soon all be taught to discount public policy as a force whose actions have consequences and need moral justification, and to discuss economic forces as if they were physical constants, to be adapted to but not changed for the better, so Americans have been taught since the mid-70's of the futility of government "intervention." Government was turned by hordes of two-bit paid scribblers into "big government," which instead of assuring citizens proper standards of living, was dragging them into the dirt.
Tellingly, this did not translate into broad cuts to the welfare state -- though this bastardized libertarianism would sometimes turn its gaze to programs actually affecting the middle class, the people made their will clear that such-and-such a program specifically was doing good (Social Security) and should not be tampered with. But the forcible redefining of our national discourse choked off of anything new or innovative that did not fall under the banner of "pro-business policy," and withered our ability to say for ourselves what was best for us.
The result is that now, voters know very well they have not gotten a fair shake in a long while, and yet large numbers of them don't connect this to their vote. Why should they, when economic difficulties are the way of the world, and government never solves anything?
Thus both America and China stave off rebellion by weakening their people's ability to point the finger of blame.
posted by Minivet at 5:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home