Will China rule the world? 中国会称霸世界吗？

Liu Xiaobo: Fighting for freedom in China 刘晓波与“零八宪章”- “自由人 vs. 中国人”

陈凯博客： www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

陈凯一语：

如果自由世界允许中共的“儒粹党朝”称霸世界，那将是人类的悲哀与文化/社会的大倒退。

Kai Chen's Words:

If the free world allows China, as in its today's form - a "Party-Dynasty" dictated by a doctrine of "Confucian Socialism", it will be the biggest tragedy of mankind. Human culture and society will experience an unprecedented corruption, degeneration and regression.

----------------------------------------------------------

Will China rule the world?
中国会称霸世界吗？

"Dear Mr. Wolf, It’s 'Freedom, silly!' that makes a nation great all around! .... China’s supremacy as a world economic power is only possible 'when and IF' 1 billion-plus Chinese have freedoms and civil rights exactly like the Americans do.

.... Global dominance as a 'world economic power house' comes with factors that are determined by social, liberal, secular, tolerant practices and character of the leaders of the nation and its people."

“是自由，而绝不是什么其它的东西，使一个国度成为伟大的国度。”.... 如果十亿中国人根本没有自由与基本人权,中国绝不可能成为/作为一个像美国一样的经济强国。

.... 一个主导世界走向的经济强国是由此国度的社会容忍度、理性水平、个体自由度与其领导层与普通人们的道德品质而决定的。”

By iqbal.latif 3/24/2011

http://iqballatif.newsvine.com/_news/2011/03/24/6332989-will-china-rule-the-world#comments

(Every morning I read the world and the top writers from my own perspective; these are my regular random thoughts that I address directly to these top writers every morning. Martin Wolf wrote yesterday 'How China should rule the world' he even conceded the whole thing without even formality of letting the readers know if it even deserves to rule the world based o freedom fundamentals alone. One thing most important form this information revolution of commons is that there is 'no thought which is sacred,' think, question and learn is my petite approach. The Economist made a serious effort in last few months and I made an answer; we all should question these imprudent irrational daily routine of ideas spewed on the world from larger media; we on our own little blogs should question and try to intellectually tear apart these icons of wisdom, that is the way for us as mankind to grow. Free man are better placed to rule the world benevolently.In my own opinions the efficacy of freedom and trust versus GDP growth being ignored is so uncharitable.)

Dear Mr. Wolf, It’s 'Freedom, silly!' that makes a nation great all around! Incentives and rewards are now part of the Chinese economic structure but freedom of expression is not; this dichotomy points to the difficult road ahead that Chinese communist party will have to negotiate very carefully. With wealth comes dissent and urge of influence; the conglomerates and powerful oligarchs will have their own impetus to articulate the directions of a future the way everyone wants. I can imagine why words like “freedom” and “enfranchisement” did not even appear in Martin Wolf’s article in Financial Times since it was a speech at this year’s China Development Forum in Beijing where the listeners needed to be pleased to no bounds.

China’s supremacy as a world economic power is only possible 'when and IF' 1 billion-plus Chinese have freedoms and civil rights exactly like the Americans do. Economic strength and GDP growth is also the sum total of freedom and trust. IQ's of people who are freed from chains of oppression are far greater and better. It is so ironic to omit the obvious so blatantly. Reminded me of USSR Soviets day when the world thought that USSR economy would take over the world – completely overlooking the fudged numbers of a centralized economy that was imploding behind the scenes. Chinese communist party rule is the biggest impediment to maintaining this growth rate and economic supremacy over the world. If they cannot even allow someone to come out and collect his 'Nobel Peace prize' (Liu Xiaobo) and convict such an undisruptive person to solitary confinement, such a nation has only one certain prospect – that of a 'social implosion’ like the USSR. It is only a matter of time.
Myth of U.S.S.R.'s Strong Economy and Media 'Experts' often Believed Soviets' Crude Propaganda:

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 ended perhaps the greatest international fraud of the 20th century. Even the CIA was fooled into overestimating the strength and size of the Soviet economy, and underestimating its military spending. The Soviets practiced the same deceit on sympathetic visitors, leading them on carefully staged tours of the "worker's paradise." Returning from Russia in 1919, the American muckraking journalist Lincoln Steffens declared famously, "I have been over into the future, and it works." The early Soviet Union attracted quite a few admiring fans, including famous British socialists like novelist H.G. Wells and playwright George Bernard Shaw. In 1935, two founding members of Britain's Labour Party, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, wrote a flattering book titled "Soviet Communism: A New Civilisation?" Later editions omitted the question mark. The Webbs and others painted Russia as a once-backward country rapidly industrializing under a forward-looking Stalin. At the time, the Soviet Union was indeed industrializing, but it was also starving to death.

An estimated 14 million Soviet people died from famine in the early 1930s when Stalin collectivized all farming. But Walter Duranty, Moscow correspondent for The New York Times, dismissed the famine as "an exaggeration of malignant propaganda." In 1933, Duranty reported "village markets flowing with eggs, fruit, poultry, vegetables, milk and butter at prices far lower than in Moscow… a child can see this is not famine but abundance." That same year Duranty was given a Pulitzer Prize for stories on the Soviet economy "marked by scholarship, profundity, impartiality, sound judgment and exceptional clarity."

What will dictate China’s GDP growth rate?

The essential nature of such an evolution from despotic rule to benevolent rule will dictate the GDP growth rate for the next few decades. Global economic greatness does not come on the back of growth rate, or inflation rate or strength of any currency alone. Global dominance as a 'world economic power house' comes with factors that are determined by social, liberal, secular, tolerant practices and character of the leaders of the nation and its people.

The clout of a great prospective nation should include, amongst others, trust and freedom, within a nation. The 'strength' is not just judged by the 'reserves and GDP growth' (with growth from very low ''great leap forward experiments,'' standards of Chinese living should be higher); those are important things but the major issue is the living standards of the lowest segment of the society also.

Chinese 800-plus million standards of living and benchmark of freedom of expression do not in any way compare to most of the developed world, neither are they free to expand their families (a basic right of human beings) or move freely within the nation. These are important elements for a judicious and across-the-board economic growth. Harnessing the entire nation with the draconian law of ‘one child only’ is quite backward and will result in skewed demographics.

Yes, all the above can be wrong if China becomes free soon and ensures a non violent multiparty rule and 1.4 billion Chinese vote for policies that may help widespread freedom, egalitarianism and growth that is uniform (though freedom of a nation from yokes of totalitarianism unfortunately retards GDP progress of any nation). Revolutions and changes are big ticket items; reality check with France and USA will tell you that.

The big 'IF ' is if 'Chinese multiparty rule will emerge as a peaceful model without derailing Chinese disciplinarian economic mould, which is presently based on a firm central control of the communist party. If the transition is peaceful and 'Chinese compliant psyche and unified nationalist tendencies' cooperate in a peaceful manner to achieve this transformation from one party system to multiparty rule which obviously is quite a chaotic choice, we can then develop a model based on GDP growth, inflation rate and strength of currency that is so modestly and banally presented in Martin Wolf’s article.