One of the coolest things that has been going on have been the protests in Hong Kong just outside of the building that we are doing this in. As people are talking about how control oriented and obedient so many of the mainland Chinese tend to be, the people of Hong Kong have amassed outside of the Parliament building to demand that China keep its promises for political autonomy and freedom. Unfortunately, that political freedom and autonomy is suppose to come in the form of democracy; however, a small, parliamentary democracy in Hong Kong is certainly better than the massive bureaucracy of Beijing.
Observations on Observers in China and SE Asia
I've been most surprised by the narratives that are told in China and SE Asia by various entities. Actually, I've been less surprised by those narratives as I have been by how readily Americans and the people around me have accepted them. There exists a host of literature on many of these places (and an honest dearth in others), but it's surprising the extent to which none of it has been engaged by people here. More impressively, it's amazing the extent to which normally skeptical people lack a the ability to engage in counterfactual logic and reasoning.
What do I mean? Well, many of the people here have bought into this idea that the Communist Party, or various other single party ruler in the countries that we have visited, provides a strong arm and single direction for the development of the country (whichever one we so happen to be in), and that without such a strong arm, these nations would never develop. The students so readily accept this, even those who should know better.
Let's not forget that the Communist Party of China is the same entity that gave us the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward (Massive Fail Backwards). The Communist Party of Vietnam starved its population, who has made absolutely no advance in living conditions until the Doi Moi (the opening up of the economy). The Communist Party of Cambodia (the Khmer Rouge) eliminated 1/4 to 1/3 of the entire population of Cambodia. Laos is a basket case, and so is Myanmar to this day. Situations like Singapore bring to mind a question as to whether or not the development occurred because of or in spite of the single-party rule that occurred there.
The truly differentiating factor was not so much the political system that was adopted, but the economic system, and the relative degree of freedom. Those nations with greater freedom tended to do better than those nations without. Once again, the question about development that must be asked is whether or not the freedom limiting activities of the various nations, both those that developed and those that didn't, is whether or not the things that came about occurred because of or in spite of the various factors involved.
Take for instance the person who smokes and develops lung cancer. Does he develop it because of his smoking or in spite of it? Now, consider the person who develops lung cancer but drank green tea every day. Did he develop lung cancer because of or in spite of? In the first case, we would often say because of (or likely because of), and in the second case we would say in spite of (or likely in spite of). The reason for that would be because we have a theoretical framework that has allowed us to isolate generic principles that range across time and space and instantiate themselves in different aspects.
I apologize for the lecture, but it's important. I want to consider a different narrative that should be considered.
The Fall of the Soviet Union
One former member of the Soviet Union said that if the people of the Soviet Union ever knew how well people in the West lived relative to people in the East, it would be all over for communism. When Michael Gorbachev opened the Soviet Union through glasnot, in an attempt to save the Soviet Union, he ended up inadvertently destroying the Soviet Union. People saw the higher living standards and the problems that people of the West did not have to face, and they decided that they wanted the lifestyle. The Soviet Empire began to crumble and one of the greatest events of the 20th century has come in the opening up of many former Soviet regimes (although most of them still have a long way to go).
This was a wake-up call to other Communist nations. Economic theory, especially that developed by Ludwig von Mises, Fredreich August von Hayek, and Murray Rothbard, has shown how communism cannot coordinate the social activities of people. Therefore, the doom of a centrally planned commonwealth was written well before it was executed. In order to avoid this inevitable demise, the Communist parties of various countries have been looking for a way to hold onto power. In this way, they have no so much directed the development of their economies as they have allowed the free market to do the work. The Communist Parties have slowly removed the obstacles that they have put in the way of entrepreneurs, savers, investors, and capitalists. This has led to an enrichment of the people, but the Communist Party has attempted to make sure that any development is attributed to actions that it has undertaken, to its generosity, and to its intelligence. So far, it has done a wonderful job of inculcating this doctrine. Furthermore, the Parties have looked for ways in which to limit development in such a way as they can maintain control. In some instances, they have been successful; in others, not so much.
Some Additional Thoughts
There is a great deal more to say on this subject and a great deal more to speculate on. Now that I have finished my time with McIntire, I have a dinner with the group tonight, but will move out of my current hotel soon. In the remaining week that I have in Hong Kong, I'm going to go to the history museum and see as many cultural sites that I can. There is so much to learn about the cultures, languages, and ways of doing things out here.
Also, there is a great deal to learn about principles. It is always important to remember that while the manifestations of principles can vary greatly across cultures, the principles themselves never change. However identifying the principles in action, what is a principle and what is a manifestation, is not always easy. These are some of the great insights that Plato helped to bring to the philosophical work in his resolution between Heraclitus and Parmenides.
No comments:
Post a Comment