「(1)エリック・X・リーの二政治体制の物語から弥勒菩薩ラエルの楽園主義実現へ」をまだお読みでない方は、こちらから先にお読みください。
前回からの続き・・・
（ここで、エリックの話が終わります。そして、司会者のブルーノがステージに上がってきました。＜管理人＞）
ブルーノ： エリック、二分ほど私とここにいてくれませんか？２つほど質問をしたいのです。この会場にいる多くの人達が、一般的に西洋の国々において民主主義システムが機能不全になっている事についての貴方の分析に関する説明に賛成すると思います。しかし、れと同時に、選挙により選出されたのではない統治者が、いかなる形態の監視や協議もなしで、国益が何であるのか決めてしまう考え方はちょっと不安であると感じるでしょう。人々が実際に国益が何であるか、貴方が定義したとおりに述べる事を可能にする中国のモデルのメカニズムとは何なのでしょうか？
エリック： フランク・福山という政治学者がいまして、彼が中国の政党システムを「機敏に反応する権威主義」と呼びました。その解釈の仕方はちょっと違いますが、しかし、近い説明の仕方だと思います。だから、中国で一番大手の世論調査会社を私は知っていますが、いいですね？この企業の一番大手のクライアントはどこだか知っていますか？中国政府なんです。中央政府だけではなく、市役所、地方官庁、そして、最も地方の近所の地域に至るまでです。彼等はいつも世論調査をしています。例えば、「ゴミの収集について幸せですか？」「国の全体的な方向性に満足していますか？」「だから、中国には人々の要求や考えに反応するために（西洋諸国とは）違う類のメカニズムが存在するのです。私の要点は、たった１つの政治制度しかない…つまり、選挙、選挙、選挙…によって政治が人々への反応をよくする、そういう政治制度しかないという考え方から開放されるべきだと思うのです。私は実際のところ、世界中で選挙が人々の要求に反応する政府を生み出すとは確信が持てないのです。
ブルーノ： （観衆の拍手を聞いて）多くの人達が賛成のようですね。民主主義制度の特徴の１つは、市民社会にとって彼らの考えを表現する自由があるということです。そして、貴方は中国の政府や当局が得ている支持についての統計値を見せてくれましたが、貴方は大きな困難や挑戦のようなその他の要素について言及してくれました。もちろん違う方向に行く他のデータも沢山あると思います。何万もの混乱や抗議、そして、環境に関する抗議など。すると、中国のモデルでは一党の外では市民社会が自由に自分たちの考えを表現する自由がないということを仰っているように見受けられますが。
エリック： 中国には、環境に関する事や、その他、西洋社会にあるようなものなど、活気のある市民社会があります。しかし、中国の市民社会は西洋とは違います。貴方はそれに気が付かないでしょう。なぜなら、西洋の定義では、所謂市民社会は政治システムとは分かれたグループでなくてはならず、また、主流となる政策に反対さえしていなくてはいけません。しかし、中国の文化ではその概念は異質なものです。数千年の間、中国では、市民社会を持ち続けていますが、それは、彼等の意見は政府と一致していて、理路整然としていて、政界秩序の一部です。そして、私はそれは大きな文化的違いであると思います。
ブルーノ： エリック、TEDと考えを分かち合ってくださって、ありがとうございます。
エリック： ありがとうございます。
※ 日本語の翻訳の終わり
◆管理人の感想：
とても素晴らしい内容ですが、私が感じたのは、多分、エリックはことばで説明していない事が沢山あると思います。言い換えれば、綺麗すぎるスピーチでした。
例えば、中国の人身売買の問題とか、犯罪の多さ、戸籍を持たない子供たち、抗議を起こそうとすると政府から逮捕され、酷い時は、殺されたりもする。その良い例が、中国の法輪功というヨガを実践する集団が、中国政府に弾圧され、多くのメンバー達が内臓をえぐり取られ殺されたりしたという事実があります。上野駅で降りて上野公園の近くを歩けば法輪功の人達に直接話しを聞くことも可能でしょう。
法輪功のグループは、中国政府の、確か、中央政府の建物の前で集団で気功の訓練をしたことが、政府の気分を逆撫でしたと記憶しています。中国政府は、この法輪功のグループに多くの中国人たちが参加して、彼等が政府に対してデモ抗議運動を起こすようになるのを恐れて弾圧をしたと聞きました。
ある事情通の人からの情報では、日本でも、法輪功のグループと一緒に気功の練習をしようものなら、中国政府に目をつけられ、中国に旅行で行った時には入国拒否をされるおそれがあるそうです。入国拒否だけならいいのですが、それが、強制入獄になってしまい、入獄拒否をこちらがしなくてはならなくなったら、そら恐ろしい話になります。
このような政府の政策・方針に対立するような、または、個人の自由な意志を強く助長するような人達に対して、中国政府は暴力的な弾圧を行い、市民社会の自由な活動を許さない、政府に準ずる市民社会しか許さないところに中国政府の問題があるのではないかと管理人は思います。それが外国人ならば中国政府はその人を強制国外退去させ、今後そのような人物は入国拒否されてしまうでしょう。つまり、中国政府の共産主義、または、社会主義は、個人の自由な表現を絶対に許さないのが問題なのです。それは、エリックも同様です。
この点については、エリックは全く触れていませんが、それは、触れると恐らく中国当局に捕まるからではないでしょうか？エリックも監視されていると思います。
それほど、中国という国は恐ろしい側面を持つと思います。その中国がアメリカよりも経済的に発展した時に、個人の自由をもっと尊重するように自己修正するのかどうかが、非常にこれからの課題となるでしょう。
また、中国政府の行う統計調査による数値で、現実的な数値をかなり改ざんしていると言われています。特に、政府のＧＤＰ統計など。彼等は、中国をよく見せるために統計データも必要ならば自由に変えて報告するようです。日本のテレビ番組でもそのような事は沢山の人達が指摘していますが。もちろん、中国国内の世論調査でも同じ様な事は沢山あるでしょう。そして、中国人はそのことを知っていますので、統計情報を正しく見る見方も知っているのです。嘘の部分は無視して、事実の部分だけを参考にするなど。
このエリックの話の中で出された統計調査のデータは、果たして信頼のおけるものなのでしょうか？
斜め目線で見れば、このエリックの話は、中国政府を他国に良く見せるための政府のプロパガンダとも取れます。エリックも政府機関の一人かも知れません。
しかしながら、資本主義社会、民主主義社会であるはずのアメリカが、他国に侵略戦争をしかけたり、世界中の人達のインターネット上での活動を盗聴するシステムを世界中のサーバーに設置したり、または、アンドロイド携帯のＯＳなどに組み込み世界中に出荷するむなど、そのような数々の民主主義国ではあるが帝国主義国家的な無謀な人権を踏みにじった行為を見ていくと、エリックの話はかなり頷ける部分もあります。
◆管理人の感想 終わり
ヽ(^。^)ノ
** English texts start from here.
Comments of the owner of this blog:
I discovered a very interesting idea spoken by this man, Eric X Li about all social systems in the world will eventually become a communist social system. And, he explains the one-party system of Chinese government as an example of this.
His idea supports the new communist social system called Paradism suggested by Maitreya Rael, the last messenger of the Elohim - those who came from the sky.
Maitreya Rael also says that China would become the strongest economic power in the world, while USA will become a developing country with a lot of suffering and poverty.
In order to realize a kind of communist society "Paradism" without any working class, it will be important for all the leaders and scientists in the world to agree on certain things explained as follows ;
We should make a system in which we can use in our daily life the fruit of the most advanced scientific technologies to improve the quality of our life for free all over the world.
In Paradism, we will have no poverty, no monetary system, no banks, no labors, no working class, no wars, no armies, no governments, no powers, no bankers, no police stations, no courts, and so on.
Everybody in the world can live in prosperity, possessing his/her own house, food, and clothes for free. This will enable us to spend our time only for improving the level of our awakening by music, meditation, creating anything we like, or even doing nothing.
We are so close to the time when the creation of such a social system will be made.
We are standing at a crossrode in life of humanity where we have to choose to go forward in a self-destructive way of the world, or to choose to introduce the social system of Paradism to the human societies throughout the world, which will enable us to live in peace and prosperity.
Now, please read the translation of the speech by Eric X. Lee.
Translation of the speech made by Eric X. Li starts...:
"Good morning, My name is Eric li and I was born here. But no, I wasn’t born there. This was where I was born: Shanghai at the height of the cultural revolution. My grandmother told me she heard the sound of gunfire along with the sound of my first cries.
When I was growing up, I was told a story that explained all I ever needed to know about humanity. It went like this. All human societies grow in linear progression, beginning with primitive society, then slave society, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and finally guess where we end up? Communism ! Sooner or later, all of humanity, regardless of culture or language, will arrive at this final stage of political and social development. The entire people on Earth will be united together and live happily ever after.
But before we get there, we are engaged in the struggle between good and evil. The good of socialism of against the evil of capitalism and the good shall triumph. That, of course, was the meta-narrative distilled from the theories of Karl Marx. And the Chinese bought it. We were taught that grand story day in and day out, it became a part of us and we believed in it. The story was a bestseller. About 1/3 of the world’s population lived under that meta-narrative.
Then the world changed overnight. As for me, disillusioned by the failed religion of my youth, I went to America and became a Berkeley hippie (laugh). Now, as I was coming of age, something else happened. As if one big story wasn’t enough, I was told another one. This one was just as grand. It also claimed that all human societies progress in a linear fashion toward a singular end. This one went as follows.
All societies, regardless of culture, bet it Christian, Muslim, confusion, must progress from traditional societies in which groups are the basic units to modern societies in which atomized individuals are the sovereign units, and these individuals are by definition, rational. And they all want one thing: the vote. Because they are rational, once given the vote, they produce good government and live happily ever after. Paradise on earth again. Sooner or later, electoral democracy will be the only political system for all countries and all people with a free market to make them all rich.
All societies, regardless of culture, bet it Christian, Muslim, confusion, must progress from traditional societies in which groups are the basic units to modern societies in which atomized individuals are the sovereign units, and these individuals are by definition, rational. And they all want one thing: the vote. Because they are rational, once given the vote, they produce good government and live happily ever after. Paradise on earth again. Sooner or later, electoral democracy will be the only political system for all countries and all people with a free market to make them all rich.
But before we get there, we’re engaged in a struggle between good and evil (laugh) The good belongs to those who are democracies and are charged with a mission of spreading it around the globe. Sometimes by force, against the evil of those who do not hold elections.
Bush Sr.: A New World Order
Bush: ending tyranny in our world
Obama: A single standard for all who would hold power.
(Shows President Bush Picture, “Mission Accomplished.”)
This story also became a bestseller. According to the freedomhouse, the number of democracies went from 45 in 1970 to 150 in 2010. In the last 20 years, western elites tirelessly trotted the globe selling this perspective. Multiple parties fight for political power and everyone voting on them, is the only path of salvation to the long suffering, developing world. Those who buy the prospectus are destined for success, those who do not are destined to fail. But this time, the Chinese didn’t buy it. Fool me once.
The rest is history.
In just 30 years, China went one of the poorest agricultural countries in the world to the second largest economy. 650 million people were lifted out of poverty. 80% of the world’s poverty alleviation within that period happened in china. In other words, all the new and old democracies put together amounted to a mere fraction of what a single, one-party state did without voting.
See, I grew up on this stuff. Food stamps. Meat was rationed to a few 100 grams per person per month at one time. Needless to say I also ate my grandmother’s portion.
So I asked myself, what’s wrong with this picture? Here I am in my hometown, my business growing leaps and bounds, entrepreneurs are starting companies every day, middle class is expanding in speed and scale unprecedented in human history. Yes, according to the grand story, none of this should be happening.
So I went and did the only thing I could, I studied it. Yes, China is a one party state run by the Chinese communist party, the party. And they don’t hold elections. 3 assumptions are made by the dominant political theories of our time: such a system is operationally rigid, politically closed, and morally illegitimate. Well, the assumptions are wrong. The opposites are true. Adaptability, meritocracy and legitimacy, are the three defining characteristics of the Chinese one party system.
Most political scientists will tell us that the one party system is inherently incapable of self correction. It won’t last long because it cannot adapt. But, here are the facts. In 64 years of running the largest country in the world, the range of the party’s policies have been wider than any other country in recent memory. From radical land collectivization to the great leap forward, privatization of farmland, and then the cultural revolution, then Deng Xiaping’s market reform, then successor Jiang Zemin took the giant political step of opening up party membership to private business people, something unimaginable during Mao’s rule.
So the party self corrects in rather dramatic fashions. Institutionally new rule gets enacted to correct previous dysfunctions. For example, term limits. Political leaders used to retain their positions for life, and they used that to accumulate power and perpetuate rules. Mao was the father of China yet the prolonged rule led to disastrous mistakes. So the party instituted term limits with mandatory retirement age of 68 to 70. One thing we often hear is political reforms has lagged far behind economic reforms and China is in need of political reform. But this plan is a political trap hidden behind a political bias.
See, some have decided a priority what kind of changes they want to see, and only such changes can be called political reform. The truth is political reform have never stopped, compared with 30 years ago, 20 years ago, even１0 years ago, every aspect of Chinese society, how the country is governed from the most local level to the highest center are unrecognizable today. Now these changes are not possible without political reforms of the most fundamental kind. I would venture to suggest that the party is the world’s leading expert in political reform.
The second suggestion is that in a one party state, power gets concentrated in the hands of the few and bad governance and corruption follow. Indeed, corruption is a big problem, but first let’s look at the larger context. This might be counter intuitive to you, but the party happens to be one of the most meritocratic political institutions in the world today. China’s highest ruling body, the polybureau has 25 members. In the most recent one, only 5 of them came from a background of privilege, so called princelings, the other 20, including the president and premier, came from entirely ordinary backgrounds. In the larger central committee of 300 or more, the percentage of those born into power and wealth was even smaller. The vast majority of senior Chinese leaders worked an competed their way to the top. Compare that with the ruling elite in both developed and under developed countries, you’ll find the party being in the top of upward mobility.
The question is, how could that be possible in a system run by one party? Now we come to a powerful political institution little known to westernerns, the party’s organization department. The department functions like a giant human resource engine, that would be the envy of some of the most successful corporations. It operates a rotating pyramid, made up of 3 components. Civil service, state-owned enterprises and social organizations like a university or community program. (9:27) They form separate yet integrated career paths for Chinese officials. They recruit college grads into entry-level positions in all 3 tracks, and they start from the bottom kuyen, then they could get promoted through 4 increasingly elite ranks. "Fuke", "Ke", "Fuchu" and "Chu". Now these are not moves from the karate kid, its serious business. The range of positions is wide, from running health care in a village to foreign investment in a city district to a manager in a company.
Once a year the department reviews their performance. They interview their superiors, their peers, their subordinates. They vet their personal conduct. They conduct public opinion surveys, then, they promote winners. (10:16) Throughout their career they can move through and out of all three tracks. Over time, the good ones move beyond the 4 base levels to the fuju and ju level. There, they enter high officialdom. By that point a typical assignment will be to manage a district with population in the millions, or a company with 100s of millions of dollars in revenue. Just to show you how competitive the system is, in 2012 there were 900,000 fuke and ke levels, 600,000 fuchu and chu levels, and only 40,000 fuju and ju level. After the ju level, the best few move further up several more ranks and eventually make it to the central committee. The process takes 2 to 3 decades. Does patronage play a role? Yes, of course. But merit remains the fundamental driver. In essence, the organization department runs a modernized version of china’s centuries-old mandarin system. China’s new president xijiping is son of a former leader, first of his kind to make a top job. Even for him the career took 30 years. He started as a village manager and by the time he entered the polybureau he managed areas with a total population of 150 million people and combined GDPs of 1.5 trillion USD.
Now, please don’t get me wrong, okay? This is not a putdown of anyone, it’s just a statement of fact. George w bush, remember him? He's not a putdown! Before becoming a governor of Texas, or Barack Obama before running for president, they could not make even a small county manager in China’s system. Winston Churchill once said that democracy is a terrible system except for all the rest. Well, apparently he hadn’t heard of the organization department.
Westerns always assume that multi party election with universal suffrage is the only source of political legitimacy. I was asked once, the party wasn’t voted in by election, where is the source of legitimacy? I said, how about competency? We all know the facts, in 1949 when the party took power china was mired in civil wars dismembered by foreign aggression… average life expectancy at that time ... 41 years old. Today, it’s the 2nd largest economy in the world and its industrial powerhouse and people live in increasing prosperity. Pure research pose Chinese public attitudes, and here are the numbers of the recent years.
Satisfaction with the direction of the country 85%. Those who think they’re better off than 5 years ago 70%. Those who expect the future to be better, a whopping 82%. Financial Times polls global youth attitudes and these numbers, brand new, just came from last week. 93% of china’s generation youth is optimistic about their country’s future. Now, if this is not legitimacy, I’m not sure what it is.
In contrast, the most electoral democracies around the world are suffering from dismal performance. I don’t need to elaborate for this audience how dysfunctional it is from Washington to European capitals. With a few exceptions, the vast number of developing countries who have adapted electoral regimes are still suffering from poverty and civil strife. Governments get elected and fall below 50% approval, in a few months, stay there, and get worse until the next election.
Democracy is becoming a perpetual cycle of elect and regret. At this rate, I’m afraid it is democracy -- not China’s one party system -- that is in danger of losing legitimacy. Now, I don’t want to create the miss-impression that China’s hunky-dory on the way to some kind of superpowerdom. The country faces enormous challenges. Social and economic problems that come with wrenching change like this are mind-boggling. Pollution is one, food safety, population issues. On the political front, the worst problem is corruption. Corruption is widespread and undermines the system and its moral legitimacy. But most analysts misdiagnose this disease. They say that corruption is a result of the one party system, and therefore, in order to cure it, you have to do away with the entire system.
But a more careful look would tells us otherwise. Transparency International ranks China between 70 and 80 in recent years among 170 countries. And it’s been moving up. India, the largest democracy in the world, 94 and dropping. For the 100 or so countries that are ranked below China, more than half of them are electoral democracies. So if election is the panacea for corruption, how come these countries can’t fix it.
Now, I’m a venture capitalist, I make bets, it wouldn’t be fair to end this talk without putting myself on the line and make some predictions. In the next 10 years, China will surpass the USA and become the largest economy in the world. Income per capita will be near the top of all developing countries. Corruption will be curved, but not eliminated. And China will move up 10 to 20 notches to above 60 in TI ranking. Economic reform will accelerate, political reform will continue, and the one party system will hold firm.
We live in the dusk of an era. Meta-narratives that make universal claims failed us in the 20th century, and are failing us in the 21st. Meta-narrative is the cancer that is killing democracy from the inside. Now, I want to clarify something. I am not here to make an indictment of democracy, on the contrary I think democracy contributed to the rise of the west and creation of the modern world. It is the universal claim that many western elites are making about their political system, their hubris, that is at the heart of the west's current ills. If they would spend just a little less time on trying to force their way onto others and a little bit more on political reform at home, they might give their democracy a better chance.
China’s political model will never supplant electoral democracy because unlike the latter, it doesn’t pretend to be universal. It cannot be exported. But that is the point precisely. The significance of China's example is not that it provides an alternative, but the demonstration that alternatives exist. Let us draw to a close this era of meta-narratives. Communism and democracy may both be laudable ideals, but the era of their dogmatic universalism is over. Let us stop telling people and our children that there is only way to govern ourselves in a singular future towards which all societies must evolve. It is wrong. It is irresponsible and worst of all, it is boring. Let universality make way for plurality. Perhaps a more interesting age is upon us. Are we brave enough to welcome it?
Thank you."
(Owner of this blog: Now, Eric has finished his speech, and the host Bruno came up to the stage to make some questions to him.)
Bruno Giussani : Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Eric : Thanks.
Bruno : Eric, stay with me for a couple of minutes, because I want to ask you a couple of questions. I think many here, and in general in Western countries, would agree with your statement about analysis of democratic systems becoming dysfunctional, but at the same time, many would kind of find unsettling the thought that there is an unelected authority that, without any form of oversight or consultation, decides what the national interest is. What is the mechanism in the Chinese model that allows people to say, actually, the national interest as you defined it is wrong?
Eric : You know, Frank Fukuyama, the political scientist, called the Chinese system "responsive authoritarianism."
It's not exactly right, but I think it comes close. So, I know the largest public opinion survey company in China, okay? Do you know who their biggest client is? The Chinese government. Not just from the central government, the city government, the provincial government, to the most local neighborhood districts. They conduct surveys all the time. Are you happy witht he garbage collection? Are you happy with the general direction of the country? So, there is, in China, there is a different kind of mechanism to be responsive to the demands and the thinking of the people. My point is, I think we should get unstuck from the thinking that there's only one political system -- election, election, election -- that could make it responsive. I'm not sure actually, elections produce responsive government anymore in the world.
Bruno : Many seems to agree. One of the features of a democratic system is a space for civil society to express itself. And, you have shown figures about the support that the government and the authorities have in China. But, then you've just mentioned other elements like, you know, big challenges, and there are, of course, a lot of other data go in a different direction: tens of thousands of unrests and protests and environmental protests, etc. So, you seem to suggest the Chinese model doesn't have a space outside of the Party for civil society to express itself.
Eric : There's a vibrant civil society in China, whether it's environment or what-have-you. But, it's different. You wouldn't recognize it. Because, by Western definitions, a so-called civil soceity has to be separate to even in opposition to the political system, but that concept is alien for Chinese culture. For thousands of years, you have civil society, yet they are consistent and coherent and part of a political order, and I think it's a big cultural difference.
Bruno : Eric, thank you for sharing this with TED.
Eric : Thank you.
** End of the translation of the speech by Eric X. Li
前回からの続き・・・
（ここで、エリックの話が終わります。そして、司会者のブルーノがステージに上がってきました。＜管理人＞）
ブルーノ： エリック、二分ほど私とここにいてくれませんか？２つほど質問をしたいのです。この会場にいる多くの人達が、一般的に西洋の国々において民主主義システムが機能不全になっている事についての貴方の分析に関する説明に賛成すると思います。しかし、れと同時に、選挙により選出されたのではない統治者が、いかなる形態の監視や協議もなしで、国益が何であるのか決めてしまう考え方はちょっと不安であると感じるでしょう。人々が実際に国益が何であるか、貴方が定義したとおりに述べる事を可能にする中国のモデルのメカニズムとは何なのでしょうか？
エリック： フランク・福山という政治学者がいまして、彼が中国の政党システムを「機敏に反応する権威主義」と呼びました。その解釈の仕方はちょっと違いますが、しかし、近い説明の仕方だと思います。だから、中国で一番大手の世論調査会社を私は知っていますが、いいですね？この企業の一番大手のクライアントはどこだか知っていますか？中国政府なんです。中央政府だけではなく、市役所、地方官庁、そして、最も地方の近所の地域に至るまでです。彼等はいつも世論調査をしています。例えば、「ゴミの収集について幸せですか？」「国の全体的な方向性に満足していますか？」「だから、中国には人々の要求や考えに反応するために（西洋諸国とは）違う類のメカニズムが存在するのです。私の要点は、たった１つの政治制度しかない…つまり、選挙、選挙、選挙…によって政治が人々への反応をよくする、そういう政治制度しかないという考え方から開放されるべきだと思うのです。私は実際のところ、世界中で選挙が人々の要求に反応する政府を生み出すとは確信が持てないのです。
ブルーノ： （観衆の拍手を聞いて）多くの人達が賛成のようですね。民主主義制度の特徴の１つは、市民社会にとって彼らの考えを表現する自由があるということです。そして、貴方は中国の政府や当局が得ている支持についての統計値を見せてくれましたが、貴方は大きな困難や挑戦のようなその他の要素について言及してくれました。もちろん違う方向に行く他のデータも沢山あると思います。何万もの混乱や抗議、そして、環境に関する抗議など。すると、中国のモデルでは一党の外では市民社会が自由に自分たちの考えを表現する自由がないということを仰っているように見受けられますが。
エリック： 中国には、環境に関する事や、その他、西洋社会にあるようなものなど、活気のある市民社会があります。しかし、中国の市民社会は西洋とは違います。貴方はそれに気が付かないでしょう。なぜなら、西洋の定義では、所謂市民社会は政治システムとは分かれたグループでなくてはならず、また、主流となる政策に反対さえしていなくてはいけません。しかし、中国の文化ではその概念は異質なものです。数千年の間、中国では、市民社会を持ち続けていますが、それは、彼等の意見は政府と一致していて、理路整然としていて、政界秩序の一部です。そして、私はそれは大きな文化的違いであると思います。
ブルーノ： エリック、TEDと考えを分かち合ってくださって、ありがとうございます。
エリック： ありがとうございます。
※ 日本語の翻訳の終わり
◆管理人の感想：
とても素晴らしい内容ですが、私が感じたのは、多分、エリックはことばで説明していない事が沢山あると思います。言い換えれば、綺麗すぎるスピーチでした。
例えば、中国の人身売買の問題とか、犯罪の多さ、戸籍を持たない子供たち、抗議を起こそうとすると政府から逮捕され、酷い時は、殺されたりもする。その良い例が、中国の法輪功というヨガを実践する集団が、中国政府に弾圧され、多くのメンバー達が内臓をえぐり取られ殺されたりしたという事実があります。上野駅で降りて上野公園の近くを歩けば法輪功の人達に直接話しを聞くことも可能でしょう。
法輪功のグループは、中国政府の、確か、中央政府の建物の前で集団で気功の訓練をしたことが、政府の気分を逆撫でしたと記憶しています。中国政府は、この法輪功のグループに多くの中国人たちが参加して、彼等が政府に対してデモ抗議運動を起こすようになるのを恐れて弾圧をしたと聞きました。
ある事情通の人からの情報では、日本でも、法輪功のグループと一緒に気功の練習をしようものなら、中国政府に目をつけられ、中国に旅行で行った時には入国拒否をされるおそれがあるそうです。入国拒否だけならいいのですが、それが、強制入獄になってしまい、入獄拒否をこちらがしなくてはならなくなったら、そら恐ろしい話になります。
このような政府の政策・方針に対立するような、または、個人の自由な意志を強く助長するような人達に対して、中国政府は暴力的な弾圧を行い、市民社会の自由な活動を許さない、政府に準ずる市民社会しか許さないところに中国政府の問題があるのではないかと管理人は思います。それが外国人ならば中国政府はその人を強制国外退去させ、今後そのような人物は入国拒否されてしまうでしょう。つまり、中国政府の共産主義、または、社会主義は、個人の自由な表現を絶対に許さないのが問題なのです。それは、エリックも同様です。
この点については、エリックは全く触れていませんが、それは、触れると恐らく中国当局に捕まるからではないでしょうか？エリックも監視されていると思います。
それほど、中国という国は恐ろしい側面を持つと思います。その中国がアメリカよりも経済的に発展した時に、個人の自由をもっと尊重するように自己修正するのかどうかが、非常にこれからの課題となるでしょう。
また、中国政府の行う統計調査による数値で、現実的な数値をかなり改ざんしていると言われています。特に、政府のＧＤＰ統計など。彼等は、中国をよく見せるために統計データも必要ならば自由に変えて報告するようです。日本のテレビ番組でもそのような事は沢山の人達が指摘していますが。もちろん、中国国内の世論調査でも同じ様な事は沢山あるでしょう。そして、中国人はそのことを知っていますので、統計情報を正しく見る見方も知っているのです。嘘の部分は無視して、事実の部分だけを参考にするなど。
このエリックの話の中で出された統計調査のデータは、果たして信頼のおけるものなのでしょうか？
斜め目線で見れば、このエリックの話は、中国政府を他国に良く見せるための政府のプロパガンダとも取れます。エリックも政府機関の一人かも知れません。
しかしながら、資本主義社会、民主主義社会であるはずのアメリカが、他国に侵略戦争をしかけたり、世界中の人達のインターネット上での活動を盗聴するシステムを世界中のサーバーに設置したり、または、アンドロイド携帯のＯＳなどに組み込み世界中に出荷するむなど、そのような数々の民主主義国ではあるが帝国主義国家的な無謀な人権を踏みにじった行為を見ていくと、エリックの話はかなり頷ける部分もあります。
◆管理人の感想 終わり
ヽ(^。^)ノ
** English texts start from here.
A tale of two political systems by Eric X. Li
Comments of the owner of this blog:
I discovered a very interesting idea spoken by this man, Eric X Li about all social systems in the world will eventually become a communist social system. And, he explains the one-party system of Chinese government as an example of this.
His idea supports the new communist social system called Paradism suggested by Maitreya Rael, the last messenger of the Elohim - those who came from the sky.
Maitreya Rael also says that China would become the strongest economic power in the world, while USA will become a developing country with a lot of suffering and poverty.
In order to realize a kind of communist society "Paradism" without any working class, it will be important for all the leaders and scientists in the world to agree on certain things explained as follows ;
1) to eliminate all the armies throughout the world, and stop wars,
2) to use all the wealth possessed by a few elites in the world for enriching the lives of all the peoples in the world. This means that a few elites must stop having all the wealth of the world only to themself, and
3) to start building an automated advanced system to produce food, clothes, and other materials needed for living by robots, nano-robots, genetic engineering, and super-computers, and deliver them automatically to all the people in the world for free,
4) to develope a closed-circuit electric plant, which is no harm for the life forms, and which can produce power indefinitely without any costs.
We should make a system in which we can use in our daily life the fruit of the most advanced scientific technologies to improve the quality of our life for free all over the world.
In Paradism, we will have no poverty, no monetary system, no banks, no labors, no working class, no wars, no armies, no governments, no powers, no bankers, no police stations, no courts, and so on.
Everybody in the world can live in prosperity, possessing his/her own house, food, and clothes for free. This will enable us to spend our time only for improving the level of our awakening by music, meditation, creating anything we like, or even doing nothing.
We are so close to the time when the creation of such a social system will be made.
We are standing at a crossrode in life of humanity where we have to choose to go forward in a self-destructive way of the world, or to choose to introduce the social system of Paradism to the human societies throughout the world, which will enable us to live in peace and prosperity.
Now, please read the translation of the speech by Eric X. Lee.
Translation of the speech made by Eric X. Li starts...:
"Good morning, My name is Eric li and I was born here. But no, I wasn’t born there. This was where I was born: Shanghai at the height of the cultural revolution. My grandmother told me she heard the sound of gunfire along with the sound of my first cries.
When I was growing up, I was told a story that explained all I ever needed to know about humanity. It went like this. All human societies grow in linear progression, beginning with primitive society, then slave society, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and finally guess where we end up? Communism ! Sooner or later, all of humanity, regardless of culture or language, will arrive at this final stage of political and social development. The entire people on Earth will be united together and live happily ever after.
But before we get there, we are engaged in the struggle between good and evil. The good of socialism of against the evil of capitalism and the good shall triumph. That, of course, was the meta-narrative distilled from the theories of Karl Marx. And the Chinese bought it. We were taught that grand story day in and day out, it became a part of us and we believed in it. The story was a bestseller. About 1/3 of the world’s population lived under that meta-narrative.
Then the world changed overnight. As for me, disillusioned by the failed religion of my youth, I went to America and became a Berkeley hippie (laugh). Now, as I was coming of age, something else happened. As if one big story wasn’t enough, I was told another one. This one was just as grand. It also claimed that all human societies progress in a linear fashion toward a singular end. This one went as follows.
All societies, regardless of culture, bet it Christian, Muslim, confusion, must progress from traditional societies in which groups are the basic units to modern societies in which atomized individuals are the sovereign units, and these individuals are by definition, rational. And they all want one thing: the vote. Because they are rational, once given the vote, they produce good government and live happily ever after. Paradise on earth again. Sooner or later, electoral democracy will be the only political system for all countries and all people with a free market to make them all rich.
All societies, regardless of culture, bet it Christian, Muslim, confusion, must progress from traditional societies in which groups are the basic units to modern societies in which atomized individuals are the sovereign units, and these individuals are by definition, rational. And they all want one thing: the vote. Because they are rational, once given the vote, they produce good government and live happily ever after. Paradise on earth again. Sooner or later, electoral democracy will be the only political system for all countries and all people with a free market to make them all rich.
But before we get there, we’re engaged in a struggle between good and evil (laugh) The good belongs to those who are democracies and are charged with a mission of spreading it around the globe. Sometimes by force, against the evil of those who do not hold elections.
Bush Sr.: A New World Order
Bush: ending tyranny in our world
Obama: A single standard for all who would hold power.
(Shows President Bush Picture, “Mission Accomplished.”)
This story also became a bestseller. According to the freedomhouse, the number of democracies went from 45 in 1970 to 150 in 2010. In the last 20 years, western elites tirelessly trotted the globe selling this perspective. Multiple parties fight for political power and everyone voting on them, is the only path of salvation to the long suffering, developing world. Those who buy the prospectus are destined for success, those who do not are destined to fail. But this time, the Chinese didn’t buy it. Fool me once.
The rest is history.
In just 30 years, China went one of the poorest agricultural countries in the world to the second largest economy. 650 million people were lifted out of poverty. 80% of the world’s poverty alleviation within that period happened in china. In other words, all the new and old democracies put together amounted to a mere fraction of what a single, one-party state did without voting.
See, I grew up on this stuff. Food stamps. Meat was rationed to a few 100 grams per person per month at one time. Needless to say I also ate my grandmother’s portion.
So I asked myself, what’s wrong with this picture? Here I am in my hometown, my business growing leaps and bounds, entrepreneurs are starting companies every day, middle class is expanding in speed and scale unprecedented in human history. Yes, according to the grand story, none of this should be happening.
So I went and did the only thing I could, I studied it. Yes, China is a one party state run by the Chinese communist party, the party. And they don’t hold elections. 3 assumptions are made by the dominant political theories of our time: such a system is operationally rigid, politically closed, and morally illegitimate. Well, the assumptions are wrong. The opposites are true. Adaptability, meritocracy and legitimacy, are the three defining characteristics of the Chinese one party system.
Most political scientists will tell us that the one party system is inherently incapable of self correction. It won’t last long because it cannot adapt. But, here are the facts. In 64 years of running the largest country in the world, the range of the party’s policies have been wider than any other country in recent memory. From radical land collectivization to the great leap forward, privatization of farmland, and then the cultural revolution, then Deng Xiaping’s market reform, then successor Jiang Zemin took the giant political step of opening up party membership to private business people, something unimaginable during Mao’s rule.
So the party self corrects in rather dramatic fashions. Institutionally new rule gets enacted to correct previous dysfunctions. For example, term limits. Political leaders used to retain their positions for life, and they used that to accumulate power and perpetuate rules. Mao was the father of China yet the prolonged rule led to disastrous mistakes. So the party instituted term limits with mandatory retirement age of 68 to 70. One thing we often hear is political reforms has lagged far behind economic reforms and China is in need of political reform. But this plan is a political trap hidden behind a political bias.
See, some have decided a priority what kind of changes they want to see, and only such changes can be called political reform. The truth is political reform have never stopped, compared with 30 years ago, 20 years ago, even１0 years ago, every aspect of Chinese society, how the country is governed from the most local level to the highest center are unrecognizable today. Now these changes are not possible without political reforms of the most fundamental kind. I would venture to suggest that the party is the world’s leading expert in political reform.
The second suggestion is that in a one party state, power gets concentrated in the hands of the few and bad governance and corruption follow. Indeed, corruption is a big problem, but first let’s look at the larger context. This might be counter intuitive to you, but the party happens to be one of the most meritocratic political institutions in the world today. China’s highest ruling body, the polybureau has 25 members. In the most recent one, only 5 of them came from a background of privilege, so called princelings, the other 20, including the president and premier, came from entirely ordinary backgrounds. In the larger central committee of 300 or more, the percentage of those born into power and wealth was even smaller. The vast majority of senior Chinese leaders worked an competed their way to the top. Compare that with the ruling elite in both developed and under developed countries, you’ll find the party being in the top of upward mobility.
The question is, how could that be possible in a system run by one party? Now we come to a powerful political institution little known to westernerns, the party’s organization department. The department functions like a giant human resource engine, that would be the envy of some of the most successful corporations. It operates a rotating pyramid, made up of 3 components. Civil service, state-owned enterprises and social organizations like a university or community program. (9:27) They form separate yet integrated career paths for Chinese officials. They recruit college grads into entry-level positions in all 3 tracks, and they start from the bottom kuyen, then they could get promoted through 4 increasingly elite ranks. "Fuke", "Ke", "Fuchu" and "Chu". Now these are not moves from the karate kid, its serious business. The range of positions is wide, from running health care in a village to foreign investment in a city district to a manager in a company.
Once a year the department reviews their performance. They interview their superiors, their peers, their subordinates. They vet their personal conduct. They conduct public opinion surveys, then, they promote winners. (10:16) Throughout their career they can move through and out of all three tracks. Over time, the good ones move beyond the 4 base levels to the fuju and ju level. There, they enter high officialdom. By that point a typical assignment will be to manage a district with population in the millions, or a company with 100s of millions of dollars in revenue. Just to show you how competitive the system is, in 2012 there were 900,000 fuke and ke levels, 600,000 fuchu and chu levels, and only 40,000 fuju and ju level. After the ju level, the best few move further up several more ranks and eventually make it to the central committee. The process takes 2 to 3 decades. Does patronage play a role? Yes, of course. But merit remains the fundamental driver. In essence, the organization department runs a modernized version of china’s centuries-old mandarin system. China’s new president xijiping is son of a former leader, first of his kind to make a top job. Even for him the career took 30 years. He started as a village manager and by the time he entered the polybureau he managed areas with a total population of 150 million people and combined GDPs of 1.5 trillion USD.
Now, please don’t get me wrong, okay? This is not a putdown of anyone, it’s just a statement of fact. George w bush, remember him? He's not a putdown! Before becoming a governor of Texas, or Barack Obama before running for president, they could not make even a small county manager in China’s system. Winston Churchill once said that democracy is a terrible system except for all the rest. Well, apparently he hadn’t heard of the organization department.
Westerns always assume that multi party election with universal suffrage is the only source of political legitimacy. I was asked once, the party wasn’t voted in by election, where is the source of legitimacy? I said, how about competency? We all know the facts, in 1949 when the party took power china was mired in civil wars dismembered by foreign aggression… average life expectancy at that time ... 41 years old. Today, it’s the 2nd largest economy in the world and its industrial powerhouse and people live in increasing prosperity. Pure research pose Chinese public attitudes, and here are the numbers of the recent years.
Satisfaction with the direction of the country 85%. Those who think they’re better off than 5 years ago 70%. Those who expect the future to be better, a whopping 82%. Financial Times polls global youth attitudes and these numbers, brand new, just came from last week. 93% of china’s generation youth is optimistic about their country’s future. Now, if this is not legitimacy, I’m not sure what it is.
In contrast, the most electoral democracies around the world are suffering from dismal performance. I don’t need to elaborate for this audience how dysfunctional it is from Washington to European capitals. With a few exceptions, the vast number of developing countries who have adapted electoral regimes are still suffering from poverty and civil strife. Governments get elected and fall below 50% approval, in a few months, stay there, and get worse until the next election.
Democracy is becoming a perpetual cycle of elect and regret. At this rate, I’m afraid it is democracy -- not China’s one party system -- that is in danger of losing legitimacy. Now, I don’t want to create the miss-impression that China’s hunky-dory on the way to some kind of superpowerdom. The country faces enormous challenges. Social and economic problems that come with wrenching change like this are mind-boggling. Pollution is one, food safety, population issues. On the political front, the worst problem is corruption. Corruption is widespread and undermines the system and its moral legitimacy. But most analysts misdiagnose this disease. They say that corruption is a result of the one party system, and therefore, in order to cure it, you have to do away with the entire system.
But a more careful look would tells us otherwise. Transparency International ranks China between 70 and 80 in recent years among 170 countries. And it’s been moving up. India, the largest democracy in the world, 94 and dropping. For the 100 or so countries that are ranked below China, more than half of them are electoral democracies. So if election is the panacea for corruption, how come these countries can’t fix it.
Now, I’m a venture capitalist, I make bets, it wouldn’t be fair to end this talk without putting myself on the line and make some predictions. In the next 10 years, China will surpass the USA and become the largest economy in the world. Income per capita will be near the top of all developing countries. Corruption will be curved, but not eliminated. And China will move up 10 to 20 notches to above 60 in TI ranking. Economic reform will accelerate, political reform will continue, and the one party system will hold firm.
We live in the dusk of an era. Meta-narratives that make universal claims failed us in the 20th century, and are failing us in the 21st. Meta-narrative is the cancer that is killing democracy from the inside. Now, I want to clarify something. I am not here to make an indictment of democracy, on the contrary I think democracy contributed to the rise of the west and creation of the modern world. It is the universal claim that many western elites are making about their political system, their hubris, that is at the heart of the west's current ills. If they would spend just a little less time on trying to force their way onto others and a little bit more on political reform at home, they might give their democracy a better chance.
China’s political model will never supplant electoral democracy because unlike the latter, it doesn’t pretend to be universal. It cannot be exported. But that is the point precisely. The significance of China's example is not that it provides an alternative, but the demonstration that alternatives exist. Let us draw to a close this era of meta-narratives. Communism and democracy may both be laudable ideals, but the era of their dogmatic universalism is over. Let us stop telling people and our children that there is only way to govern ourselves in a singular future towards which all societies must evolve. It is wrong. It is irresponsible and worst of all, it is boring. Let universality make way for plurality. Perhaps a more interesting age is upon us. Are we brave enough to welcome it?
Thank you."
(Owner of this blog: Now, Eric has finished his speech, and the host Bruno came up to the stage to make some questions to him.)
Bruno Giussani : Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Eric : Thanks.
Bruno : Eric, stay with me for a couple of minutes, because I want to ask you a couple of questions. I think many here, and in general in Western countries, would agree with your statement about analysis of democratic systems becoming dysfunctional, but at the same time, many would kind of find unsettling the thought that there is an unelected authority that, without any form of oversight or consultation, decides what the national interest is. What is the mechanism in the Chinese model that allows people to say, actually, the national interest as you defined it is wrong?
Eric : You know, Frank Fukuyama, the political scientist, called the Chinese system "responsive authoritarianism."
It's not exactly right, but I think it comes close. So, I know the largest public opinion survey company in China, okay? Do you know who their biggest client is? The Chinese government. Not just from the central government, the city government, the provincial government, to the most local neighborhood districts. They conduct surveys all the time. Are you happy witht he garbage collection? Are you happy with the general direction of the country? So, there is, in China, there is a different kind of mechanism to be responsive to the demands and the thinking of the people. My point is, I think we should get unstuck from the thinking that there's only one political system -- election, election, election -- that could make it responsive. I'm not sure actually, elections produce responsive government anymore in the world.
Bruno : Many seems to agree. One of the features of a democratic system is a space for civil society to express itself. And, you have shown figures about the support that the government and the authorities have in China. But, then you've just mentioned other elements like, you know, big challenges, and there are, of course, a lot of other data go in a different direction: tens of thousands of unrests and protests and environmental protests, etc. So, you seem to suggest the Chinese model doesn't have a space outside of the Party for civil society to express itself.
Eric : There's a vibrant civil society in China, whether it's environment or what-have-you. But, it's different. You wouldn't recognize it. Because, by Western definitions, a so-called civil soceity has to be separate to even in opposition to the political system, but that concept is alien for Chinese culture. For thousands of years, you have civil society, yet they are consistent and coherent and part of a political order, and I think it's a big cultural difference.
Bruno : Eric, thank you for sharing this with TED.
Eric : Thank you.
** End of the translation of the speech by Eric X. Li