|
|
发表于 2010-10-13 12:43 PM
|
显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 Kami 于 2010-10-13 17:29 编辑
I think a lot people here still hold that China is 专制 and the US is 民主, black and white, just like decades ago what they believed - China was planned economy and the US was market oriented economy, or China was socialism and the US was capitalism. Things have changed a lot. White/black may be useful to distinguish two different theories, but it is not that useful to describe the reality. China's status in the political spectrum is no longer dictatorship, and I think it is still evolving. China is no longer a "pure" socialism country (just like European countries, or even the US, are no longer "pure" capitalism countries --- a lot of Marxism's ideas have been implemented in those countries). China is getting closer to a market oriented economy (it may never, neither does it have to, achieve a "full" market oriented economy -- actually a totally free market economy no longer (or never) exists on this planet). Right now, a proper description of China's political system is authoritism, and it has great potential to evolve into something like Japan's political system (I don't think it will ever evolve into something like what's in the US, or even close to it). Japan's system is far different from what is in the US or in the Europe but it is generally viewed as a democratic system.
In my view, election, which is one component of democracy, is only one of the many ways to manage the society. It provides a quantative method to calculate different interest groups' strength and gives a placebo to the general public that each and every one of them could have his/her own voice. Ultimately, the decision-making process involves compromises among interest groups based on their strength. However, if the balance is broken, the stronger group would have no (or less) incentive to negotiate with the others, even in a society like the US (since Obama's democratic party controls both houses, they did not bother to talk to the republicans on issues such as healthcare reform).
Can one party be the "delegate" of all members of a certain society? It certainly could, so long as such party is big enough to include representatives of all classes and interest groups to provide a channel for different voices. Some "democratic" countries have multiple major parties, some only have two major parties, some only have one (like Japan and Singapore). Given that TG has almost 70 million members, it has the potential to evolve into a Japan/Singapore style system. 林子大了什么鸟都有, TG also has left, moderate and right wings, but so far they have not materialized into any definitive sub-groups.
Evolution is better than revolution. China's sociel structure has evolved into a totally different one after 60 years and I am confident that, without violent disruption, China's political structure could also evolve (actually the process has started, although not that fast yet) into a more modernized structure. |
评分
-
3
查看全部评分
-
|
狗仔卡
发表于 2010-10-12 05:54 PM
老熊勿怒，小妹这厢道个万福。说起热爱TG嘛，其实多数爱人都是靠TG地津贴付房贷的。人家容易吗，每帖才鸡毛钱，得多少化名发多少贴才够得上住进老婆不出墙的房子呀。
发表于 2010-10-12 07:42 PM
