Thursday, October 20, 2016

Chinese Democracy

In China they do have some low level elections, but typically it's a choice between two party approved apparatchiks so the point seems kind of lost on westerners.  What's the point in voting when the result is already preordained?  As well, what effect could such voting have on the general lawlessness in the upper echelons of Chinese society?  Although China currently has a premiere, diktats typically come out of the black box of the Politburo to be rubber stamped by their Central Committee (it wouldn't even surprise me they pass laws only to find out what is in them later).

The party's rule is absolute and it tolerates no competition.  This leads to all manner of laws concerning the environment, labor, taxes, etc. to be selectively applied to those viewed as "unfavored" (i.e. not a member of the nomenklatura). Barring that, the party labels any dissenters (or those that they feel labeling as such) as traitors to the revolution.  Even if these people are not detained, they will be drummed out of "polite" society, with their careers and livelihoods ruined.

A large portion of the population (perhaps not a majority, but enough) favors this system since they feel that they are in on the scam being run by their elites.  They report any activity that they view as subversive and would gladly and openly vote for the corrupt elite that makes the lives of the rest of their countrymen so miserable.

Of course even in a country like China it's dangerous for the elites to wield such violence, so the violence of the state is absolute.  It goes without saying that no one can own a firearm, but as well all press outlets echo the party line, telling people what they should or should not care about.  If something does happen to break out of the party echo chamber it is squished after a set time in order to ensure that party rule is no being openly doubted.

-------------
In other news, this isn't bad: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152024526021/i-wake-you-up-for-the-presidential-debate. The only thing that I'll fault it for is the final line that mentions "policies" since in this election cycle (and quite possibly all future Federal elections) has nothing to do with any sort of policy debate. 100+ years ago Intellectual political debates in the U.S. were all the rage, now we're like many (all?) other nations where we argue over the scraps that the oligarchs let us keep.  The left are witting fools in this since they want to be on the side of the oligarchs and get first choice at the trough.

For instance, people take issue with the cost of medical care, housing, cars, education, etc. or the paucity of wages, but never the system that led to those issues to begin with.  What I hear 99.9% of the time is how the knobs on the system might be better tuned so that it's wretchedness might not be so apparent.

I itch to post these rants to Facebook, but it's a dead end.  Thinking about a future with no student loans, no medical insurance, and no need for monkeying with the minimum wage because what we need is affordable by nature is too much.  Whenever I tell people that producers have to offer their product at a price that the consumer can afford, I feel like the Lawrence Fishburne character in The Matrix, but everyone takes the blue pill.  The "blue pill" works until it doesn't, which it's close to