Socialism with Chinese Characteristics v. Liberal Democracy 21

Posted: July 25, 2023 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , | 629 Comments

Long-term Efforts for National Prosperity v. Short-term Efforts to Win Votes

The US wants to compete and win the competition with China, but China does not want to compete but instead wants win-win cooperation with the US.

Why such great difference?

Because of their entirely different political system.

In the US, though there are only two powerful political parties, neither is sure to win the election to control the Congress and have its member elected as state leader. In order to win votes, they have to please their voters. Now almost all US voters want to contain China’s rise; therefore, both parties advocate and want to win competition with China.

However, neither of them has set up long-term development plan. Even if they have set such plans, they cannot be sure they will be able to control Congress and have their members continuously elected as presidents to carry out the plan.

China’s Socialist modernization

In 2017, China laid out the goal of having “socialist modernization basically realized” by 2035. Some Western media regards that as a major shift in China’s ambition to catch up with the U.S. economically. They said that conventional forecasts predicted China would match the U.S. around the mid-21st century, but Chinese leaders pushed that target forward by 15 years.

That is really stupid, what does conventional forecasts to do with Chinese leaders’ ambition? Chinese leaders set their own targets based on China’s own ability. What the US economy will be by 2035 will not be their concern as they are not able to decide the extent of US economic development. Therefore, whether China has attained the goal of having basically realized modernization has nothing to do with the issue of whether Chinese economy would match US’s. China’s 2035 plan raising fears of greater confrontation with US is certainly a false prediction. No matter whether China has it 2035 plan and no matter whether the plan means matching US’s economically by 2035, the US would definitely compete with China fiercely now and afterwords in order to contain China’s rise.

However, judging by US and China’s current GDP growth rates, China surpass of US economically will only be a matter of time. But China is not so mean and stupid as to hinder US economic development. On the contrary, it wants win-win cooperation with the US. Win-win means both China and the US will be benefited by the cooperation. Though the US wants to hinder China’s development, China does not want to do the same as it clearly knows that like the US, it is certainly unable to hinder the other’s development without hurting itself.

China has set up a plan of building China into a great modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious, and beautiful by the middle of the century. It is now making great efforts to carry out such a plan. Judging by its success in the past four and a half decades, it is very possible for China to succeed in carrying out that plan. What the US can do? A presidential liboral democracy has never been able to set up and carry out any long-term plan. Contain China’s rise? It’s beyond US ability.

Chapter 21 of Chan Kai Yee’s new book “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics v. Liberal Democracy”

Socialism with Chinese Characteristics v. Liberal Democracy 20

Posted: July 22, 2023 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Purchase of Votes v. Seek People’ Happiness, Satisfaction, Sense of Achievement

Biden’s Forgiveness of Student Loans Reminds me of Feng Huan’s Purchase of Popularity for Prince Mengchangjun.

“Feng Huan as Prince Mengchangjun’s House Guest” is a well-known story in China’s famous history book “Warring States Policies”.

The story says that Feng was unable to make a living and asked Prince Mengchangjun, the brother of the King and Prime Minister of the State of Qi to take him as a house guest. When he lived as the Prince’s guest, he asked fish for food, a carriage for travel and his old mother to be taken care of. The prince satisfied all his three demands though Feng tell him that Feng had no skill or expertise.

However, when the Prince wanted an accountant to collect debts for him from his only possession, the city of Xue, Feng accepted the job and asked what to buy with the money collected. The prince told him to buy what he is short of. Feng saw that the prince has abundance of everything but only lacks popularity as he fails to take care of the people of his only territory, but instead profit from them by lending them money. Feng gave Xue people all the money the prince had lent them and burned all the documents of lending and soon returned to the prince. At the prince’s question what he bought with the money collected, he told the prince he has bought popularity for the prince.

The prince was upset but he was dismissed by the king soon afterwards and had to return to his only city. Unexpectedly, all Xue people came out to welcome him. The prince told Feng that by that time he understood what Feng had purchased for him. Feng told the prince that a sly rabbit needed three holes for survival, but the prince only had one at that time. He told the prince that he would make the other two for the prince.

Now, it seems that US President Joe Biden is precisely buying popularity like what Feng did. The prince needed popularity to attract the kings of other states to employ him as prime minister. That was the use of popularity in backward feudal autocracies. Biden is certainly more advanced to win votes with the purchase of his popularity in a liberal democracy. In Feng’s case, the prince has to incur expense in the purchase, but Biden need not spend a penny, the state will provide funds for his purchase of popularity. US taxpayers have finally to pay the bill of the purchase for a president who has no obligations to serve the people but usurps state’s funds to buy popularity for himself.

China Seeks People’s Happiness, Satisfaction, Sense of Achievements

In his report to CCP 20th National Congress, Xi stressed CCP’s goals to make people happier with greater satisfaction and sense of achievements. It pursues better employment of college graduates so that they would not be heavily debt ridden. That is certainly better than lending first and then forgive the loans lent to force taxpayer to suffer the uncovered loans.

What China stresses is development. With successful development, there will be full employment for college graduates. As a result, they will be able to repay the loans they have borrowed for their college education.

Chapter 20 of Chan Kai Yee’s new book “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics v. Liberal Democracy”

Socialism with Chinese Characteristics v. Liberal Democracy 19

Posted: July 18, 2023 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , | 35 Comments

People Born Evil v. People Born Good

People Are Born Evil, A Basic View in Western Liberal Democracy

In theory, Western people mostly believe the Bible’s Creation narrative

As Adam and Eve the Bible’s first man and first woman disobeyed God’s order and committed the sin of eating the forbidden fruit on the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God curses all three including the serpent who seduced Eve to eat the fruits. God punished the man to a lifetime of hard labor followed by death, the woman to the pain of childbirth and to subordination to her husband, and the serpent to go on his belly and suffer the enmity of both man and woman. God then banishes them from the garden of Eden lest they eat the fruit of a second tree, the tree of life, and live forever.

Based on the Christian doctrine of the Fall of man, came the doctrine of original sin that regards Adam’s sin was hereditary: “Death passed upon all men because they all inherited Adam’s sin. Original sin became a concept that man is born into a condition of sinfulness and must await redemption. This doctrine became a cornerstone of the Western Christian theological tradition,

The above may be the theological basis for the view in Western liberal democracies that people are born evil.

In China, Mencius’ People Are Born Good Prevails

In China, after Confucius’ death, there were two major Confucianist sections: Mencius’ that held people were born good and Xun Tze’s that held people were born evil. As the book “Mencius” was selected as one of the four textbooks for China’s official examination for more than a thousand years. Mencius’ view has prevailed.

Consequences of the Views

The theories of such views may have been forgotten but it seems that the influence remains forever.

In the West, grave views and doctrines have been derived from the view that people are born evil. First, the popular view that power corrupts. The greater the power, the worse the corruption; therefore, people are allowed limited tenure as state leader for fear that state leader’s great power will corrupt the leader. There must be division of three powers to prevent each power from growing excessive. As a result, there has been no heroic state leader for decades. People are waiting for Jesus Christ to come to be king of kings, lord of lords to establish his reign forever.

Having no such religion, Chinese people want the emergence of a heroic state leader. Such leaders are rare but do emerge sometimes to make China the greatest nation in the world. Luckily, we have Xi Jinping as such a leader now. His pursuit of creation-, innovation- and consumption-led economic growth, rural invigoration, environment-friendly development, opening of outlets to sea in the West through China-Pakistan and China-Myanmar Economic Corridors, alliance with Russia, three-in-one strategy, etc. prove his talents in leading China to a wonderful better future.

Chapter 19 of Chan Kai Yee’s new book “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics v. Liberal Democracy”

Socialism with Chinese Characteristics v. Liberal Democracy 18

Posted: July 16, 2023 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Decision by The Wise v. by Majority

I have mentioned that a state leader needs the professional knowledge, skill and experience more demanding than a complicated profession of law, accounting, etc. but in a presidential liberal democracy such as the USA the state leader, i.e. president is elected by laymen out of their interests without such knowledge, skill or experience.

The United States, a presidential liberal democracy, is declining but it seems only its last but one president Donald Trump and some of his supporters are aware of that so that they want America to be great again. Others do not seem to be aware of that though almost every American has fallen into Thucydides trap and wants to contain China in order to prevent China from surpassing the US and becoming world no. one. Americans are not unanimous on making their country strong again but only on containing China. As quite a few of them do not agree with Trump that there is need to make America great again, it is very likely Trump’s successor will not carry on his efforts.

That is the problem in election of president with universal suffrage in a liberal democracy like America’s. As the system cannot generate a satisfactory leader, there is always the need for changes in electing a new leader. As a result, a new president usually will have his new policies, which may not be better as such election cannot generate a better leader but at least, the elected successor can show he is different from his predecessor. That is common as in the past few decades no president was satisfactory to most American people.

As a result, there is no long-term good efforts for improvement. Only a president’s mistake can be long-term. That is why erroneous wars can draw on for a decade or longer until total defeat or there is no hope to win.

Chinese Tradition: Decision by the Wise instead of Majority

In the US, a good leader is rare but cannot be kept due to limited tenure.

In China, decision is almost by the wise instead of majority

In Chinese history decision, especially important one, is made by the wise instead of majority though the wise is even a very small minority. A small number of decisions might be made by majority and brought about poor results, but there was no process of voting in making such decisions in old China.

There have been lots of examples of good decisions being made by wise minority. Here I only give two typical examples of the decisions on the battles vital for the survival of those involved: Liu Xiu’s Battle of Kunyang at the end of West Han Dynasty (Liu Xiu later founded the East Han Dynasty) and Zhu Yuanzhang’s war of resistance against Chen Youliang, the most powerful warlord at that time (Zhu Yuanzhang later founded the Ming Dynasty).

The Battle of Kunyang (昆陽之戰)

When Wang Mang, who usurped West Han Dynasty to become Emperor of the short new Xin Dynasty he set up, sent 430,000 troops to attack Kunyang, the 9,000 rebels in Kunyang wanted to scatter or flee to Jingzhou to protect their relatives and assets as they were greatly outnumbered by the Xin force. Liu Xiu (who later united China and set up East Han Dynasty), however, opposed their plan and told them to guard Kunyang. He alone convinced all the other leaders of the rebel troops that if they scattered they would fall easy prey to the enemy and lost not only their relatives and assets but also their own lives.

If the decision had been made by vote, Liu Xiu would certainly have been voted down as he was the only one that advocated fighting instead of fleeing. However, as his view was wise, the rebels eventually agreed to his view.

Liu went out of the city, gathered the about 20,000 troops outside the city, bravely attacked the enemy force encircling the city and hit them hard. Encouraged by Liu’s brave example, the troops in the city charged out fiercely into enemy ranks. Together with Liu’s force outside the city their less than 50,000 troops defeated Wang Mang’s 430,000 troops and almost annihilated them with the help of a sudden rainstorm.

Zhu Yuanzhang’s War of Resistance against Chen Youliang

At that time. Chen Youliang had the most powerful troops in China and decided to defeat Zhu Yuanzhang’s much smaller troops in Zhu’s much smaller area. He soon took Taiping that shielded Zhu’s capital Yingtian (now Nanjing). At that critical juncture, Zhu held a meeting of all his advisers to decide what to do.

All the advisers advocated giving up Yingtian either to run away or to retreat to Zijin Hill for defense. Only Liu Ji opposed their views. Liu told Zhu that they had nowhere to retreat to. If Yingtian had been lost, everything would have been lost. Zhu’s troops had to defend Yingtian to their death. There was no other way out.

Moreover, Liu pointed out that Chen, though strong, was arrogant. If seduced into an ambush deep in Zhu’s area, Chen’s troops could be defeated. Liu’s bravery inspired Zhu’s courage. He accepted Liu’s advice, fought bravely and wisely and finally defeated Chen Youliang. He had thus laid the foundation for the establishment of his Ming Dynasty.

Deng Xiaoping’s Southern Tour

The above are both decisions-making on war. What about decision-making on economic development and state governance? Deng Xiaoping’s Southern Tour was a good example.

Deng Xiaoping’s reform and opening up has opened the way for China to become rich and strong and greatly improve people’s living standards. However, when Deng’s ways had achieved initial successes, in 1989 the Tienanmen Incident caused a reverse to the old way of monolithic public ownership and planned economy. At the advanced age of over 90, Deng conducted his Southern Tour to bring China back to his ways of reform and opening-up almost alone, resulting in China’s more than 4 decades of continuous reform and opening-up that turned China from a very poor and backward country into world no. 2 economy with no. 1 position in many sectors of economy and technology.

Chapter 18 of Chan Kai Yee’s new book “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics v. Liberal Democracy”

Socialism with Chinese Characteristics v. Liberal Democracy 17

Posted: June 29, 2023 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , | 27 Comments

Choice of Best for Performing Obligations v. Competition for Power, Interest, Perks

Campaign for State Leader, a Competition for Power,. Interests, Perks in a Liberal Democracy

The position of a state leader, normally a president or prime minister, is accompanied with great power and intrests including high income and perks; therefore, candidate fight for the position may mostly aim at obtaining the power and interests instead of the obligations to serve the country.

As candidates pursue their personal interests, they certainly do not want anybody to monopoly the job whether or not the job may be monopolied by somebody with with exceptional talents as a state ;eader.

A Party wants its candidate elected to enhance its power for its interests, as various parties pursue their respective interests and as the successful election of their candidates will greatly facilitate realization of their interests, they certainly do not want others’ monopoly of the job with great power.

Due to the great power and interests a state leader has, potential candidates fight fiercely for their personal gains and the gains of their party instead of the benefits of their country and the people in general. That often makes election campaigns for state leader dirty especially the employment of such dirty tricks as mud slinging.

As people and parties have grown rich and influential, more and more people and parties have the resources and ambition to have them and their members elected as state leaders, they certainly want to establish some rules to put an end to above-mentioned monopoly. With the excuse of equal opportunity and avoidance of autocracy. Most presidential liberal democracies set limit to the tenure of state ;eaders. In the US, the limit is two terms of four years, while there are limits to number. and length of terms in other liberal democracies. Though a realy competent state leader is rare and difficult to find, they would not allow a proved good leader longer terms to serve their people,

China’s Leader Nominated by Retiring Leader to Continue serving the people

China is a country led by the Chinese Communist Party ((CCP), a party that puts the people first and regards serving the people as its goal. The Party’s leader Xi Jinping is the core of its leadership. He was selected by retired leader Jiang Zemin and approved by Jiang’s associates as competent to continue the Party’s service for the people. That is why Xi as China’s leader gives some details of his state serving the people as follows in his report to CCP 20th National Congress:

“We have implemented a people-centered philosophy of development. We have worked continuously to ensure people’s access to childcare, education, employment, medical services, elderly care, housing, and social assistance, thus bringing about an all-around improvement in people’s lives. China’s average life expectancy has reached 78.2 years, its per capita disposable annual income has risen from 16,500 yuan to 35,100 yuan, and more than 13 million urban jobs have been created each year on average over the past 10 years. We have built the largest education, social security, and healthcare systems in the world. These achievements have allowed us to make historic strides in making education universally available, bring 1.04 billion people under the coverage of basic old-age insurance, and ensure basic medical insurance for 95 percent of the population. Timely adjustments have been made to the childbirth policy. More than 42 million housing units in run-down urban areas and more than 24 million dilapidated rural houses have been rebuilt, marking a significant improvement in housing conditions in both urban and rural areas. The number of internet users has reached 1.03 billion. We have ensured a more complete and lasting sense of fulfillment, happiness, and security for our people, and we have made further progress in achieving common prosperity for all.”

Chapter 17 of Chan Kai Yee’s new book “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics v. Liberal Democracy”

Socialism with Chinese Characteristics v. Liberal Democracy 16

Posted: June 27, 2023 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Rule by the People v. Rule for the People

China’s Hereditary Dynasties

There may be no harmony, continuity or cooperation among people of various different interests in US liberal democracy where state leader is selected by universal suffrage but each citizen has the equal right to one vote for his/her interest or even lofty ideal. That is certainly much better than China’s game of fighting to catch the deer (which means the throne) on Central Plains (which means in China).

The game seems a natural choice of the best, but the war usually causes disaster to the people. In Chinese history, the winner of the game usually set up a hereditary dynasty, where the succeeding state leader was chosen by heritage. If the governance of the dynasty is not so bad as to make people unable to make a living, people usually would not support a rebel leader’s attempt to replace the dynasty with a new game of war. However, unlike previous winners of the games, CCP, the winner of China’s last civil war, set up the People’s Republic of China and put an end to China’s hereditary dynasties.

China’s Tradition of Rule for the People

The founder of a dynasty who had won the game for the throne was usually a clever man who regards the empire he had won as his family assets. He knew well that for long survival of his dynasty, he and his successors had to take good care of their subjects (i.e. the people). They had learned from Confucianism’s last sage’s views: “people are like water while his dynasty is like a boat. Water can carry or capsize the boat.” Therefore, the founder usually set some rules for his successors to follow in order to maintain his dynasty’s long-term survival. The most important rule was to take care of his subjects satisfactorily. That is China’s tradition of rule for the people.

CCP’s Rule for the People

As CCP is a Marxist party that advocates confuciast Mencius democracy, it is in nature a party that rules for the people. In doing so, it upholds and further develops China’s tradition of rule for the people. As it is a Marxist party, it is natural that it’s goal is to serve the people.

Western Liberal Democracy – Rule by the People

The loser of the civil war, Chiang Kai-shek of the KMT fled to Taiwan, had his political power out of gun barrels there and set up his hereditary dynasty with the support of world’s largest democracy, the United States.

In the West people obtained democracy for their rights to rule their country through armed struggle, typically the Independence War in the United States and the armed struggle of French Revolution. In the United States, the rights people have obtained through the war are specified in their Declaration of Independence, the most important of which are described in the well-known phrase: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The French Declaration of the rights of Man and of the Citizen provides in its first two articles: “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.”

“The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.”

Western Democracy Is Rule by but not for the People in General

As people have their power and rights to rule their state with their votes, in a liberal democracy the state is ruled by the people. However, a modern state is usually very large with a huge population of millions of people.

People there have to elect their representatives as congress members or even a president to rule their country. As their specific interests differ, they have various different parties to represent their interests; therefore, their representativea rule their state for their different interests and have the obligations to serve the interests of the voters who had elected them. They have no obligations to serve the people in general. As a result their democracy may be rule by the people but not rule for the people in general,

Chapter 16 of Chan Kai Yee’s new book “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics v. Liberal Democracy”

Socialism with Chinese Characteristics v. Liberal Democracy 16

Posted: June 20, 2023 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , | 30 Comments

Popular Support v. No Support Even by Congress

Popular Support for CCP’s Administration

As mentioned in the preceding chapter, CCP enjoys widespread support of all Chinese people as it has proved by lifting all Chinese people from poverty that it is a party serving all Chinese people. Its further two 15-year goals also aim at bringing happiness to all Chinese people so that all Chinese people are working hard to help CCP attain its goals.

US Administration Lacks Support from Congress

A state leader elected by universal suffrage cannot be sure that he has the support of the houses of representatives in his country. Theoretically, voters who have elected a state leader shall elect the leader’s party to facilitate his governance of the country. Often, however, that is not the case especially in the United States. Up to 1994 Democrats controlled Congress for 40 years but in 28 of the 40 years there were Republican presidents.

Why? Theoretically, the philosophy of American political system is democracy, i.e. a system of rule by the people. In order to prevent the democracy from turning into an autocracy, i.e. rule by a single person or political party or organization, there shall be the separation of the three powers of executive, the legislature and judiciary to prevent any of the three powers grow too great, especially the executive that may grow without limit and become an autocracy.

With the separation of three powers, in the US the power of the state leader, i.e. the president, elected by universal suffrage is limited. In its serious national economic depression from 1929 to 1933, quite a few of President Roosevelt’s New Deal programs to save the economy and provide jobs and relief for poor people were overturned by the Supreme Court.

Roosevelt tried to have the Justice Procedure Reform Bill passed by Congress for removal of conservative justices, but Congress would not cooperate.

Why? It is said that the judiciary and legislative wanted to protect the separation of three powers.

Politics Driven by Interests

The true cause is the fact that in a liberal multi-party democracy politics is driven by interests.

Various party represents various interest groups. The strongest group or groups may have the majority votes and have the largest number of representatives in the houses of representatives of the country called parliament, congress or otherwise.

In a parliamentary system, the party or the coalition of parties that has the majority chooses the prime minister as the state leader in power. The prime minister has to work for the interests of the party or coalition of parties so that he will have the party’s or coalition’s support. Otherwise he will face a vote of no-confidence and loses his position. Then another prime minister will be elected if the party or coalition remains the majority. Otherwise, a new election will be held to generate a majority party or coalition, which will appoint its prime minister..

As a result, even if the country is split into various interest groups, a majority can after all be generated to enable the country to have a government supported by the majority in the houses of representatives and empowered to carry out its policies

If a state leader elected by universal suffrage is elected with a substantial majority, his party must have the support of the majority in the houses of representatives. As pointed out above in reality, that was not often the case. In the past, a US president was often elected by a substantial majority. Even so, voters would elect a house of representatives and Senate controlled by a party other than the president’s. To restrict the president? I don’t know. Perhaps, voters elect the house or houses of representatives out of some specific interests of theirs while elect the president out of their general interests.

As a result, even the Democratic Party of President Clinton who won election with quite a large majority failed to control US Congress resulting in his failure to have Congress adopt the bill on his health care plan that was one of the most prominent items on his legislative agenda.

Now the United States is a split country due to peoples different interests. President Trump could only win a majority of Electrol College vote but lost the popular vote by nearly three million votes. However, he is better than President Jorge Bush Jr., who needed a recount of votes to determine his victory with a marginal majority.

Trump’s Republican Party controlled only the House of Representatives when Trump came to office but lost control of the House in the midterm election. Trump perhaps believed that people supported him and had him elected as he promised to build a border wall between the US and Mexico to prevent entry of illegal immigrants who may take away job opportunities from American people. That was the desire of the grass root who would suffer from unemployment whenever there were some economic difficulties. However, the vested interests that control Congress especially big moneys can make lots of profits by employing the cheap labor provided by illegal immigrants.

Due to the conflicts of interests, Trump was unable to obtain funds from Congress for the construction of the border wall. His dispute with Congress on that issue finally led to the 2018-2019 government shutdown for 35 days.

Democracy Means Fight for Interests Peacefully by Votes

An autocracy is a system of government in which a single person or party (the autocrat) possesses supreme and absolute power. The decisions of this autocrat are subject to neither external legal restraints nor regularized mechanisms of popular control.

In Europe, people fought for and finally won democracy typically through armed struggle as what people did in the French Revolution. In America, Americans won their democracy also through armed struggle namely the war of independence. The enlightened people in Europe and America established their democracy by force and then were able to fight for their interests peacefully with their equal right of voting.

Therefore the philosophy of democracy is fight for interests with vote. Though the fight is peaceful instead of military, it is not cooperation but fight for interests.

With such philosophy, people with opposing interests view one another with hostility and there is little room for cooperation among them though the decision reached through voting affects the whole country.

That is typically reflected in Brexit. In the referendum on Brexit, only 52% votes have decided Brexit against the opposition of 48%, but the government regards Brexit as the decision of the whole people and would attain the goal of Brexit at any cost. It simply ignores the views of the 48% who oppose Brexit and their concerns that Brexit may to some extent harm them.

Lack of Cooperation or Harmony

Since all the people in a democracy fight for their interests and mostly focus on their different immediate interests instead of their similar long-term interests, there is bound to be conflicts among them. Before the establishment of their democracies, they were united in fighting for their interests by force, i.e. through armed struggle. Such struggle is usually regarded as armed riots if their scale was not large and they were suppressed by the government’s much stronger forces.

If the scale was large, it may be called a civil war or even a revolution if resulting in overthrow of the existing government, especially if it is the fight for some lofty idea, ideal or goal, such as the great French revolution that finally resulted in French democracy.

Greatness of Democracy

Democracy is a great invention that puts an end to bloody armed fight among people of various different interests. In a democracy, people fight for their interests by votes. Various interested groups prove their strength by the percentage of votes they respectively have.

The group or groups without majority are certainly weaker than that or those with majority. Therefore, the majority prevails over the minority is the indispensable golden rule of democracy. Without it, there can be no democracy at all. It seems miserable for the weaker, but much better than fight and lose a war for their minority interests.

Sometimes the majority is quite small. For example, the 2016 referendum on Britain’s exit from EU was passed with a majority of only 52% against a quite strong minority of 48%. If the decision had been made by armed struggle instead of peaceful voting, the armed struggle might have been a prolonged civil war that might have caused severe damages to the country. The ability to solve such a great difference peacefully proves the superiority of democracy.

In a parliamentary system, the party or coalition in power usually has to listen to and accommodate to the interests of minority. Otherwise, there may be demonstration, strikes or other civil riots that may make the majority’s governance difficult. However, when the two sides are almost equally divided like the British people on Brexit, it is difficult for the majority to accommodate to the minority.

Advantages of US Presidential System

Usually in a presidential system, i.e the system of election of state leader by universal suffrage the majority also listen to and accommodate to the interests of the minority like in a parliamentary system. However, the system seems better than the parliamentary system. For example, voters can elect a congress controlled by the opposition to protect the interests of the minority that is unable to elect their president. In addition, in American democracy, a weak interest group can lobby the Congress for its interests. That is even better.

The above are the original advantages of US presidential system. However, now due to the accumulation of wealth, the interest groups of big money have grown so powerful that small interest groups can hardly have any influence in Congress.

As a result, the lack of cooperation and harmony is much more serious in US presidential system. It is typically reflected in government shutdowns.

Lack of Government for the People

Lincoln concluded his Gettysburg Speech with the famous passage “this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Government of the people, by the people, for the people is the cream of democracy. Election of president by universal suffrage is a way to generate the government by the people but that is not exactly the case in the United States as US president is elected by Electoral College vote instead of popular vote. For example, Trump won the Electoral College vote with quite a substantial majority of 304 to 227 but lost the popular vote by nearly three million votes. With no majority of popular vote can Trump be regarded as a president elected by the people​?

Only two parties dominate US politics but neither of them regards generating and maintaining a government for the people as its goal though they both claim that they serve the interests of the people. If they have identical goal of serving American people in general, why do they contend for the position of president and the control of house of representatives and senate so fiercely?

As pointed out previously, democracy is a great invention that puts an end to bloody armed fight among people of various interests and replace fight with military force by fight with votes. Therefore, it does not put an end to their fight for interests as their specific interests are different. The winner wins for its interests which may well be the opposite of the loser’s interests. Therefore, it is impossible for the winner and loser to cooperate and there is no harmony in the society. As the winner is usually the majority, we can be sure that at least the majority of people is winner and happy with their victory.

However, the inability to cooperate may result in government shutdown that harms all the people whether the winner or loser.

Government Shutdown in the United States

Since 1990 there have been government shutdowns in the United States when the executive was unable to get the legislature to pass funding legislation to finance the executive for its next fiscal year or adopt a temporary funding measure..

The most significant shutdowns since 1990 were the 21-day shutdown of 1995–1996 during the Bill Clinton administration; the 16-day shutdown in 2013 during the Barack Obama administration and the 35-day shutdown of 2018-2019 during the Donald Trump administration, which was the longest shutdown in US history.

During a government shutdown, the government has to cut the activities and services of its agencies, furlough non-essential workers, maintain the services of only essential employees related to the safety of human life or protection of property.

During Clinton administration, government shut down for five days from November 14 through November 19, 1995, and for 16 days from December 16, 1995, to January 6, 1996 due to conflicts between Democratic President Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress over funding for education, the environment, and public health in the 1996 federal budget. The first of the two shutdowns caused the furlough of about 800,000 workers, while the second, about 284,000 workers.

During the Obama administration US federal government shut down for 16 days from October 1 to October 17, 2013 due to a dispute over implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The 16-day shutdown caused about 800,000 federal employees to be put on furlough and 1.3 million to report to work without any known payment dates. It disrupted some major government programs including those concerning Native Americans, children, and domestic violence victims and the legal processing of asylum and immigration cases and sexual assault cases, Tourism was hit hard due to the closure of national parks and institutions that caused government loss of millions of revenue. US economic growth was reduced during this period.

However, the serious impact has not deterred further government shutdown as neither the executive nor the legislature care about American people.

During Trump administration, there was a government shutdown for 35 days from December 22, 2018 to January 25, 2019 that set a record for the length of government shutdown. The shutdown was caused by a dispute over Trump’s demand for Congress provision of $5.7 billion in federal funds for a U.S.–Mexico border wall. As Congress failed to support Trump’s funding demand, Trump refused to sign the appropriations last passed by Congress into law. Congress could not overrule Trump’s refusal to sign and Trump even said that he would be “proud to shut down the government for border security” though according to the White House Council of Economic Advisers’ estimate, each week of the shutdown caused reduction of US GDP by 0.1 percentage.

Chapter 16 of Chan Kai Yee’s new book “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics v. Liberal Democracy”

Socialism with Chinese Characteristics v. Liberal Democracy 15

Posted: June 19, 2023 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Abundance v. Lack of Shared Interests or Ideal

American Democracy Based on Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address

Americans have a great ideal of democracy, which was described by America’s great statesman former President Abraham Lincoln i.e. the democracy of government of the people, by the people and for the people.

For a long time since then Lincoln’s great ideal of democracy was American people’s great ideal. It was that great ideal that has enabled the United States to grow into a world superpower that brought benefit to not only American but also world people,

Such great ideal originates from American people’s Christian faith. It was due to such an ideal that American people fought and defeated German Fascism along with European people in Europe during World War II. It was also due to such an ideal that after the war, US government of and by the people provided generous financial aids to Europe under its Marshal Plan that contributed to Europe’s economic recovery from the damages of the war.

Failure of American Liberal Democracy Now

However, American democracy has gradually degenerated, resulting in government shutdown and failure to obtain funds for fixing and/or rebuilding at least 5,000 bridges in poor conditions. That proves that in the US there is government elected by the people but simply no government of or for the people!

The US is proud of its liberal democracy with multi-party, but in fact there are no other significant parties than the two dominant parties there. It then seems quite simple for good administration of the country as there is but the need for the cooperation of only two parties to serve the people. However, the reality is much more complicated as people vote for their own interests. What a voter wants is to elect a president, senator or congressman to advance his/her own interests instead of the lofty ideal of having a government for American people as a whole.

Recently, American people elected Donald Trump as their president. Those who elected him wanted him to build a border wall to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the US so that Americans’ job opportunities will not be taken away by illegal immigrants.

The majority of Congress members perhaps uphold the interests of those who want to employ illegal immigrants as cheap labor. Anyway, whatever their motives, employing immigrants or simply creating difficulties to hinder the existing administration so that they might have their presidential candidate elected in the next election, due to the conflict of interests, US congress refuses to provide funds for the construction of the wall. The dispute between the president and Congress has resulted in government shutdown, i.e. no government to serve the people, for some time.

Wonderful democracy! Free election and more than one Party are most important but the poor situation of no government serving the people does not worry those who advocate US multi-party liberal democracy!

The president had to and had indeed declared security emergency in order to obtain the funds necessary to build the wall, but Congress wanted to make such declaration illegal. Therefore, there might be one more government shutdown. No government for the people? Neither the president nor the Congress cared.

China’s Socialist Democracy with Chinese Characteristics

In China’s socialist system, there is only one major party, the Chinese Communist Party that is the leader of China. In order to have a government for the people, the country shall be lead by a party that belongs to the whole people and whose goal is to serve the people.

Former leader of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Jiang Zemin had his Three Represents written into CCP constitution, the third Represent of which is that CCP represents the whole people, i.e. CCP is of the people.

Since for satisfactory administration a country has to be governed by a party with the only goal of serving the people, there can only be one leading party. If there are more parties really with the identical goal of serving the people, they will certainly be merged into the one leading party. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with China’s one leading party system with a party that puts the people first. On the contrary, such one leading party system is much better than US multi-party democracy as it, though is not elected by the people, is of the people and for the people while the ruling party in the US is elected by but is not of or for the people.

Moreover, when a person joins the CCP, he/she has to take an oath to “always be prepared to sacrifice his all for the Party and the people”.

To be more specific, CCP General Secretary Xi Jinping times and again stressed that the mass of people’s wish for better life is the goal that CCP strives to attain.

That is the reason why Xi wants CCP members not to forget the oath they take when they join CCP. That is the reason why Xi stresses that CCP has to manage the party strictly.

Chinese People Share CCP’s Goals and Ideal

Having lifted all China’s a billion people from poverty, CCP is very popular in China now. Chinese people share CCP’s goals for the grand rejuvenation of China and the first and second 15-year goals. They are now working hard to help CCP attain its goals.

Chapter 15 of Chan Kai Yee’s new book “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics v. Liberal Democracy”

Socialism with Chinese Characteristics v. Liberal Democracy 14

Posted: June 18, 2023 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , | 1 Comment

A Party with v. a Country without Long-term Goal

Difficulty for China to Attain Its Long-term Goals

An ambitious long-term goal is usually hard to attain and may cause short-term pain in the course of attaining it.

For example, China has set a long-term goal of basically realizing modernization in 15 years by 2035 followed by another 15-year goal of developing into a prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious and beautiful great nation by 2050. In order to attain such great goals, China has to first switch from export- and investment-geared economic growth to innovation-, creation- and consumption-led economic growth. The switch will certainly bring lots of long-term benefits, but many enterprises will have difficulties to conduct such a switch as it may cause them to lay off quite many of their employees who lack the education and skill for such a switch.

Some of the export-oriented enterprises may move abroad to Silk Road economic belt to continue their operation, but it will be too expensive to bring their employees there. The switch, worsened by US trade war with China, may give rise to the sharp pain of massive unemployment. Such pain may last several years and may cause the state leader if elected by universal suffrage unable to be reelected or have someone from his party to be elected to succeed him and carry on his efforts. Therefore, no state leader elected by universal suffrage can set a long-term goal for a decade or longer.

China’s Track Record in Attaining a Long-term Goal

However, China has indeed attained its centenary goal of the founding of CCP in lifting its billion people from poverty.

Compared with China, no other countries have set, let alone attained any such great long-term goal.

No Need for Long-term Goal if There Is No Competitor

For the US, if there is no competitor that has set up and been making great efforts to attain lofty goals that may result in surpassing the US, there is indeed no need for the US to have a long-term goal, not even a short-term one.

When there was not a rising China that might compete with the US for world leadership, there was no threat of competition. The US arrogantly believed that it was powerful enough to fight two wars at the same time regardless of the consequences. It has thus incurred heavy debts in fighting the two wars.

The US invaded Iraq for the goal to destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction but found none of such weapons there. Its troops remained there for no strategic goal at all until it found that it was debt ridden and could no longer afford remaining there.

The US invaded Afghanistan to remove the terrorist organization of Al-Queda. When Al-Queda had fled Afghanistan and its leader Osama bin Laden was finally found and killed in Pakistan, US troops remain there. People simply wonder what is US goal in fighting the war there. The US simply has no goal at all, let alone long-term goal.

Finally, China’s rise has put an end to US presidents’ happy goalless era.

Now, China’s rise has caused US former President Donald Trump to set up the goal of making the US great again by boosting US economic growth. That goal cannot be a long-term one as quite a few Americans regard such a goal as needless. They believe the US remains great now so that there is no need to make the US great again.

True China’s GDP, though growing faster than US, remains much smaller than the US and China still lags behind the US in science, technology, etc. It seems that a future US president may be forced to have and Americans will be forced to accept a goal to compete with China when China has really caught up and even surpassed the US.

However, it is still a question whether that US goal can become a long-term one.

US President Has Difficulty Even to Attain a Short-term Goal

Trump’s Republican Party controlled only the House of Representatives when Trump came to office but lost control of the House in the midterm election. Trump perhaps believed that people supported him and had him elected as he promised to build a border wall between the US and Mexico to prevent entry of illegal immigrants who may take away job opportunities from common American people. That was the desire of the grass root who would suffer from unemployment whenever there were some economic difficulties. However, the vested interests that control Congress especially big moneys can make lots of profits by employing the cheap labor provided by illegal immigrants.

Due to the conflicts of interests, Trump was unable to obtain funds from Congress for the construction of the border wall. His dispute with Congress on that issue finally led to the 2018-2019 government shutdown for 35 days.

Chapter 14 of Chan Kai Yee’s new book “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics v. Liberal Democracy”

Socialism with Chinese Characteristics v. Liberal Democracy 13

Posted: June 18, 2023 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , | 1 Comment

American Democracy Based on Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address

Americans have a great ideal of democracy, which was described by America’s great statesman former President Abraham Lincoln i.e. the democracy of government of the people, by the people and for the people.

For a long time since then Lincoln’s great ideal of democracy was American people’s great ideal. It was that great ideal that has enabled the United States to grow into a world superpower that brought benefit to not only American but also world people,

Such great ideal originates from American people’s Christian faith. It was due to such an ideal that American people fought and defeated German Fascism along with European people in Europe during World War II. It was also due to such an ideal that after the war, US government of and by the people provided generous financial aids to Europe under its Marshal Plan that contributed to Europe’s economic recovery from the damages of the war.

Failure of American Multi-Party Democracy Now

However, American democracy has gradually degenerated, resulting in government shutdown and failure to obtain funds for fixing and/or rebuilding at least 5,000 bridges in poor conditions. That proves that in the US there is government elected by the people but simply no government of or for the people!

The US is proud of its multi-party democracy, but in fact there are no other significant parties than the two dominant parties the Republicans and Democrats there. It then seems quite simple for good administration of the country as there is but the need for the cooperation of only two parties to serve the people. However, the reality is much more complicated as people vote for their own interests. What a voter wants is to elect a president, senator or congressman to advance his/her own interests instead of the lofty ideal of having a government for American people as a whole.

Two years ago, American people elected Donald Trump as their president. Those who elected him wanted him to build a border wall to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the US so that Americans’ job opportunities will not be taken away by illegal immigrants.

The majority of Congress members perhaps uphold the interests of those who want to employ illegal immigrants as cheap labor. Anyway, whatever their motives, employing immigrants or simply creating difficulties to hinder the existing administration so that they might have their presidential candidate elected in the next election, due to the conflict of interests, US congress refused to provide funds for the construction of the wall. The dispute between the president and Congress resulted in government shutdown, i.e. no government to serve the people, for some time.

Wonderful democracy! Free election and more than one Party are most important but the poor situation of no government serving the people does not worry those who advocate US liberal democracy!

The president had to and had indeed declared security emergency in order to obtain the funds necessary to build the wall, but Congress wanted to make such declaration illegal. Therefore, there might be one more government shutdown. No government for the people? Neither the president nor the Congress cares.

China’s Democracy with Chinese Charateristics

In China’s socialism with Chinese characteristics, there is only one major party, the Chinese Communist Party that acts as commander-in-Chief in China. In order to have a government for the people, the country shall be ruled by a party that belongs to the whole people and whose goal is to serve the people.

Former leader of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Jiang Zemin has had his Three Represents written into CCP constitution, the third Represent of which is that CCP represents the whole people, i.e. CCP is of the people.

Since for satisfactory administration a country has to be governed by a party with the only goal of serving the people, there can only be one leading party. If there are more parties really with the identical goal of serving the people, they will certainly be merged into one party. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with China’s system with a party that has centralist power that puts the people first. Such a system is much better than US multi-party democracy as it, though is not elected by the people, is of the people and for the people while the ruling party in the US is elected by but is not of or for the people.

Moreover, when a person joins the CCP, he/she has to take an oath to “always be prepared to sacrifice my all for the Party and the people”.

To be more specific, CCP General Secretary Xi Jinping times and again stresses that the mass of people’s wish for better life is the goal that CCP strives to attain.

That is the reason why Xi wants CCP members not to forget the oath they take when they join CCP. That is the reason why Xi stresses that CCP has to manage the party strictly.

Chapter 13 of Chan Kai Yee’s new book “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics v. Liberal Democracy”

← Older Entries