Many people say today that the West is in decline. Nothing could be further from the truth. The US and the EU are developing steadily, GDPs are at all time highs, military are massive and strong, and budgets have been cut back and loan exposure pushed down. At the same time, somehow, most people still want to live in these places.
Saudis go to the UK, Syrians to Germany, Chinese to the US, Koreans to Japan, Philippinos to Australia, Brazilians to Japan, and so on, and so on. Tell me when people start to try immigrating into China en masse, except from even more dictatorial states like North-Korea or Bangladesh (work related travel, like that of Vietnam doesn't count).
A lot of politicians and nationalist citizens are butthurt when their country is criticised. That rests on an enormous misunderstanding. Namely mixing up blame and criticism. Or thinking they are the same. Usually its the butthurt people, who are not running their countries well, who bash the West.
Criticism is just pointing out that something is wrong. But it is not saying that you are faulty for it. Your country can lack a fair justice system (like China, Pakistan, Russia and many others states do). But that is not saying that this is the individual Chinese citizen's fault. If someone tells me my country could do something better - i.e. they criticise my country - I listen to them. Why? Because they take the time and effort to give advice. If I disagree or their criticism is mistaken I can explain this to them. We both gained something and had an interesting conversation. If they are right: it's a chance for me to improve.
Blame is when something wrong is pointed out and responsibility is attributed for it. So, while it is wrong to blame the ordinary Chinese girl or guy for the bad legal system, or the average Hungarian for state corruption, and so on, it is right to blame Chinese politicians or Hungarian politicians for these things. They are the bosses, the decision makers who could change things.
Hence, people who love their country - whether they are the citizens of the US, of one of the EU countries or any other country - should learn from criticism and when justified blame their politicians.
The average person has nothing in common with his or her elected officials. No interests shared. If there is no pressure on politicians they will look to their own interests, as Bentham aptly pointed out 200 years ago.
So, don't take criticism and blame personally. Take it as a chance to gain insight on what you should pressure your overlords to change to make your country better!
A good example comes from Japan's history. Japan was forced in the 1850s to sign unfair trade-treaties with Britain, the US, Russia, France and other countries. These treaties pushed the country into a semi-colonial position. Japan also received a lot of criticism from these countries for its backwards legal institutions, poor external trading and industrial policies, etc.
Did the country deny the obvious - that the countries twisting its arm were doing better? No. It patiently put down its ass. It learned and studied how to reform its institutions, how to change its leadership, how to train its people and build up a well working industry and market. After this, between 1890 and 1911 it could revise most of the unfair treaties. In fact it grew so strong by the 1930s that the US felt threatened by it.*
Japan didn't endorse everything that Western advisors, experts, politicians, business people, philosophers and others recommended or tried to force on it. It took on those things which were useful for the country. Good management practices from the British and the Americans, yes; insane free market principles that erode society, no. Efficient army and - at the time - cutting edge uni organisation ideas from the German and the French, yes; racist colonialist ideas, no.
Being open to criticism and learning doesn't mean that you endorse everything uncritically that others tell you. It doesn't mean that others blame you and you accept responsibility. It means you are a sensible person who can choose which criticism to endorse as advice, and you can help explain to others why you think your system works better when you don't want to change.
If China would have been in a position to do the same after the 1840s or after WWI it could have become a stable power much faster. It started the same process as Japan in the 1970s however, but it only took it about forty years - thanks to its massive size, territory, military aggression and strong central government - to become the largest economy in the world.
So, when small, badly run and deeply corrupt countries like Hungary talk about the end of the West and deny that the EU is doing well...its obvious what's going on: they can't use criticism to develop. This choice is disastrous for the country: the leaders' vanity is hurt and for this reason the whole country is pushed towards Russia and China, authoritarian, and not very efficiently performing states. Time to stop such governments. Time to kick out such leaders. Time to sit down, learn, and improve.
* 34(That is why the US tried to blackmail Japan into giving up some of
its conquests by stopping selling oil to it. And that's what prompted
Japan to push to South-East Asia in search for oil, which triggered the
US's backlash and the Pacific War. But that's another story.)
Showing posts with label nationalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nationalism. Show all posts
Thursday, 16 August 2018
Wednesday, 28 September 2016
Notes on a forward looking liberalism
There are many complaints and enemies of a conservative liberal political world view. Trump, Putin, Duterte, Xi Jinping, Nigel Farage, and Viktor Orban can all be mentioned as belonging on this list.
What can be seen straight away is that three types of people are on this list:
1. Politicians who are invested in business and military affairs, and want to challenge the dominance of Western countries. Especially in the case of China and Russia it is obvious that they perceive the dominance of the US and the EU not only an issue of economic and military competition, but also an ideological threat that might undermine their authoritarian rule.
2. Minor politicians who are trying to ride the waves and make some short term political (and probably monetary) profit from aligning with radicals and subversives who are disillusioned with the ruling parties. Farage in the UK and Orban in Hungary are typical examples of this. While Orban's government channels all EU funds directed at the development of Hungarian agriculture, business, and infrastructure into their own businesses and family properties, he is a devoted fan and ally of Putin. (Farage and Orban are obviously not interested in democracy. When they talk about national self-determination they are talking about the ability of local politicians and businessmen running the place. That's why both of them are afraid of the EU.)
3. Public figures who are nuts (like Trump), and people who see an obstacle in democratic processes to their own power (like Peter Thiel).
What should true liberals, who are conservative in the sense of sticking to the core ideas of liberalism (with a social stint) say? Well, what we need is a positive and forceful narrative. That is what liberalism is lacking at the moment. So much has been achieved in the last 60 years in Europe and the US: wealth, improvements in legal transparency, freedom of press, rights for everyone. The problem is that we don't have a good, politically charged story to move us forward.
Most of the mainstream liberal stories at the moment are extremely individualistic, and focus on improving the lived experiences of individuals in difficult positions in society (minorities, woman, homosexuals, and so on). This is perfectly fine, but it is also perfectly silent on how to relate to governments and corporations that are not afraid to use corrupting means and military threat to get their way, and which are or are becoming extremely powerful.
The key thing we need to keep in mind is that liberalism (a socially sensitive version keeping equality and individual freedom in focus) has to stand up for its values. One cannot support religious freedom, the freedom and equality of woman at the same time as recognizing the right to practice a religion that bans the freedom and equality of woman on the personal level. These are issues of core values and democratic, liberal societies need to step up and be on their guard not to get overwhelmed by nationalist right wing crazies, apostles of capitalism without boundaries, or authoritarian pumpkins like Trump or Putin.
Liberalist societies have plenty to defend. What we need is not nationalism reloaded, but a union of all those communities that are committed to freedom, electing our own leaders without corporate and military interference, to expressing our views and opinions freely, and to stick to the truth that countries which don't treat people right are wrong in their ways and need to change. This should apply to any country, no matter how mighty or economically powerful they are, be that Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Turkey.
Recognizing that there is something to lose, and there is something we need to defend is one of the key steps to relaunch a constructive liberalism that can also foster income equality, transparency, and equality among citizens, regardless of gender, race, sexuality, and so on.
What can be seen straight away is that three types of people are on this list:
1. Politicians who are invested in business and military affairs, and want to challenge the dominance of Western countries. Especially in the case of China and Russia it is obvious that they perceive the dominance of the US and the EU not only an issue of economic and military competition, but also an ideological threat that might undermine their authoritarian rule.
2. Minor politicians who are trying to ride the waves and make some short term political (and probably monetary) profit from aligning with radicals and subversives who are disillusioned with the ruling parties. Farage in the UK and Orban in Hungary are typical examples of this. While Orban's government channels all EU funds directed at the development of Hungarian agriculture, business, and infrastructure into their own businesses and family properties, he is a devoted fan and ally of Putin. (Farage and Orban are obviously not interested in democracy. When they talk about national self-determination they are talking about the ability of local politicians and businessmen running the place. That's why both of them are afraid of the EU.)
3. Public figures who are nuts (like Trump), and people who see an obstacle in democratic processes to their own power (like Peter Thiel).
What should true liberals, who are conservative in the sense of sticking to the core ideas of liberalism (with a social stint) say? Well, what we need is a positive and forceful narrative. That is what liberalism is lacking at the moment. So much has been achieved in the last 60 years in Europe and the US: wealth, improvements in legal transparency, freedom of press, rights for everyone. The problem is that we don't have a good, politically charged story to move us forward.
Most of the mainstream liberal stories at the moment are extremely individualistic, and focus on improving the lived experiences of individuals in difficult positions in society (minorities, woman, homosexuals, and so on). This is perfectly fine, but it is also perfectly silent on how to relate to governments and corporations that are not afraid to use corrupting means and military threat to get their way, and which are or are becoming extremely powerful.
The key thing we need to keep in mind is that liberalism (a socially sensitive version keeping equality and individual freedom in focus) has to stand up for its values. One cannot support religious freedom, the freedom and equality of woman at the same time as recognizing the right to practice a religion that bans the freedom and equality of woman on the personal level. These are issues of core values and democratic, liberal societies need to step up and be on their guard not to get overwhelmed by nationalist right wing crazies, apostles of capitalism without boundaries, or authoritarian pumpkins like Trump or Putin.
Liberalist societies have plenty to defend. What we need is not nationalism reloaded, but a union of all those communities that are committed to freedom, electing our own leaders without corporate and military interference, to expressing our views and opinions freely, and to stick to the truth that countries which don't treat people right are wrong in their ways and need to change. This should apply to any country, no matter how mighty or economically powerful they are, be that Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Turkey.
Recognizing that there is something to lose, and there is something we need to defend is one of the key steps to relaunch a constructive liberalism that can also foster income equality, transparency, and equality among citizens, regardless of gender, race, sexuality, and so on.
Sunday, 29 May 2016
On the road back to feudalism
There is a gruesome trend we can observe: economic inequality is starkly on the rise in every country on Earth and fundamentalist, radical parties are gaining more and more following.
Just one example of the many horrors to which this leads is the fact that ISIS is now holding 50000 civilians hostage. They are ready to do anything they can to preserve their power. That means, they are ready to kill 50000 non-combatant innocent civilians to cause the enemy to suffer heavier losses. Why would anyone want a power like ISIS to rule over themselves? Why would anyone support an organization that is willing to sacrifice so many people in such a horrible way?
Many of those people in Fallujah will lose their father, mother, children, sister and brothers. Many of them will burn alive, will be shot, will blow into pieces, will be reduced to bloody blobs, will suffer horrible agonizing slow deaths, will be handicapped for the rest of their lives, will suffer incredible traumas. Who wants that? Who supports such a power?
We see far-right leaning nationalist dictators and autocrats on the rise elsewhere too: just consider Putin's new solidified might in Russia, Trump's candidacy and his atrocious way of thinking, Orban in Hungary where he is bartering with the Russians to get into a position where he can get away with corruption in the EU, or Xin's iron-fisted rule in China.
The serious problem is that Russia, the US, China, and even tiny Hungary, have better organized systems of rule and military in place than ISIS. These are solid nation states. That means that if the wrong people get in power they can become even more dangerous, as we can see this in the case of the Chinese party's rule in China. Censorship is extremely strong, most people are fed government designed news, they don't have access to critical voices, there is no option to changing and ousting people from the rule who are not doing well and not acting in the interests of their people.
We see clearly that economic inequality is on the rise globally. The rich are in control of more and more land, more and more companies, and have massive clout and powerful tools to pressure and influence governments.
Add to this that in the EU and the US many are turning back towards a repressive and outdated - not to mention factually wrong - religious fundamentalism.
It is almost as is if we would be on the way back to Feudalism, where the rich landowners own the lands of their vassals who in change serve them, and also own the land and means by which the rest of us can work. They command armies, and are only responsible towards themselves.
Just one example of the many horrors to which this leads is the fact that ISIS is now holding 50000 civilians hostage. They are ready to do anything they can to preserve their power. That means, they are ready to kill 50000 non-combatant innocent civilians to cause the enemy to suffer heavier losses. Why would anyone want a power like ISIS to rule over themselves? Why would anyone support an organization that is willing to sacrifice so many people in such a horrible way?
Many of those people in Fallujah will lose their father, mother, children, sister and brothers. Many of them will burn alive, will be shot, will blow into pieces, will be reduced to bloody blobs, will suffer horrible agonizing slow deaths, will be handicapped for the rest of their lives, will suffer incredible traumas. Who wants that? Who supports such a power?
We see far-right leaning nationalist dictators and autocrats on the rise elsewhere too: just consider Putin's new solidified might in Russia, Trump's candidacy and his atrocious way of thinking, Orban in Hungary where he is bartering with the Russians to get into a position where he can get away with corruption in the EU, or Xin's iron-fisted rule in China.
The serious problem is that Russia, the US, China, and even tiny Hungary, have better organized systems of rule and military in place than ISIS. These are solid nation states. That means that if the wrong people get in power they can become even more dangerous, as we can see this in the case of the Chinese party's rule in China. Censorship is extremely strong, most people are fed government designed news, they don't have access to critical voices, there is no option to changing and ousting people from the rule who are not doing well and not acting in the interests of their people.
We see clearly that economic inequality is on the rise globally. The rich are in control of more and more land, more and more companies, and have massive clout and powerful tools to pressure and influence governments.
Add to this that in the EU and the US many are turning back towards a repressive and outdated - not to mention factually wrong - religious fundamentalism.
It is almost as is if we would be on the way back to Feudalism, where the rich landowners own the lands of their vassals who in change serve them, and also own the land and means by which the rest of us can work. They command armies, and are only responsible towards themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)