Worst Dictators

[joncha]

[Robert]

Every list that doesn't have Kim-Jon-Il on the #1 position sucks anyway. I don't need to click to the site to know that.

[Ecthy]

Wow. A truly scientific attitude.

[Mao]

Originally posted by Barinthus


First of all it doesn't make one a dictator. However it does reflect poorly upon that country's leadership for not doing anything about it. For instance, China - no mininum wage law????

Erm... so it reflects poorly...o...k... I seriously have a hard time imagining any government being able to raise all of China out of poverty post-49. Many could've done a better job, but I'm not sure what you're expecting. Also, who says nothing's being done? Industry has been creeping into the hinterlands since the 1980s. It could be done better, but some things are being done (not necessarily for the right reasons, mind you, but there are actions being taken). Minimum wage is a problem, but like many of Beijing's pronouncements, even if it were established it'd be far too hard to enforce. That whole surplus of labor, migrant population thing and all. Add to that that most of the population are not wage-earners in the first place, although the trend is going towards that, most still aren't.

Also, one amazingly can live on the equivalent of $1 a day in the countryside, especially now that peasants pay no taxes. It's not a good life and I certainly wouldn't want to be there, but it's better than before, and that's what matters to a lot of them. Not doing anything about it...pffft, if ignoring the plight of a country's most vulnerable citizens were a crime, I'd charge that most leaders of the world are guilty (some more than others, but I'd still say all).

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Wow. A truly scientific attitude.

Wrong, Ecthy. CyberShy is just a True Believer^TM in the primacy of the creative and brilliant Dear Leader.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Every list that doesn't have Kim-Jon-Il on the #1 position sucks anyway. I don't need to click to the site to know that.

Hottest Manufactured Babes:
1) Kim-Jon-Il
2) Jessica Alba
3) Lindsay Lohan
4) ...

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Mao

Also, one amazingly can live on the equivalent of $1 a day in the countryside, especially now that peasants pay no taxes. It's not a good life and I certainly wouldn't want to be there, but it's better than before, and that's what matters to a lot of them. Not doing anything about it...pffft, if ignoring the plight of a country's most vulnerable citizens were a crime, I'd charge that most leaders of the world are guilty (some more than others, but I'd still say all).

The dramatic rise of riots each year in the countryside seems to indicate that it is not better than it was before.

[Mao]

I don't think it does. I think the riots indicate that people realize it could be better, a lot better. But if you ask them if their life is better now than it was forty years ago, or even ten or twenty years ago, I contend that the majority would say that it is better.

[DaShi]

Considering that most riots in the countryside are about stopping changes to their land and lives (ie no pollution, keeping their land), I wouldn't say it's about them wanting it to be better. Rather it's that they want to maintain things the way they are and improve their lives on their own as they see fit. Now the riots in the cities are more likely to be about getting better conditions.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Mao
I don't think it does. I think the riots indicate that people realize it could be better, a lot better. But if you ask them if their life is better now than it was forty years ago, or even ten or twenty years ago, I contend that the majority would say that it is better.

About 15 years ago, more than half the population lived on less than $1 a day. Now that number has been cut from 600 million to 150 million (assuming the mag has it's numbers right).

That's not to say that China is a utopia, but the government has done an incredible job in developing the country and making it better.

It is still, of course, a developing country with a long way to go to reach developed status.

As for the riots, the message from the top seems to be strong concern about what is happening at the local level. And steps are being taken to get the security forces under control and to stop local corruption.

[Mao]

Originally posted by DaShi
Considering that most riots in the countryside are about stopping changes to their land and lives (ie no pollution, keeping their land), I wouldn't say it's about them wanting it to be better. Rather it's that they want to maintain things the way they are and improve their lives on their own as they see fit. Now the riots in the cities are more likely to be about getting better conditions.

"Most" riots? Well, I'm not sure about that, but I'm sure many are. And your point is well take, there are many riots over this. Even within your framework, however, I would argue that it's still about being "better" than before. The Chinese peasantry very rarely had any political power and was usually at the mercy of higher classes, thus their rioting to stop changes to their homes/lands/etc. is still a hope for something "better" than what they had before. This is quite sad, of course, but I believe it's the case.

At any rate, my main point still stands, that life is better for the vast majority of people in China. Now, this doesn't mean that it can't be better or that it excuses government excess and brutality, but to argue otherwise is just factually untrue. This is also in contrast to other dictatorships around the world, where life has gotten markedly worse (ie: DPRK).

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Mao

"Most" riots? Well, I'm not sure about that, but I'm sure many are. And your point is well take, there are many riots over this. Even within your framework, however, I would argue that it's still about being "better" than before. The Chinese peasantry very rarely had any political power and was usually at the mercy of higher classes, thus their rioting to stop changes to their homes/lands/etc. is still a hope for something "better" than what they had before. This is quite sad, of course, but I believe it's the case.

For the countryside it's hard to say it is better than before. In the past, they had their own land and lived their own lives. Their aspirations were that of farm folk. That doesn't mean that they need big screen TVs or cars to be happy. They have their own definition. Now things are better than during the wars, where marauding Japanese and Chinese soldiers would take over the villages and torment the locals. But war is always a worse time. What you have to look at is it better than before the wars. For most countryside villages, I don't think it's that much different, except for the rise in pollution and loss of land to companies and industries. This is what the riots have been about. Those that seek a different life from farm life, or lost their opportunity at such a life, have moved to the cities. There is where they will protest for better conditions in already overpopulated urban areas.

Since you don't describe what they had before and what they want to be better than it was, I don't understand this statement at all: "The Chinese peasantry very rarely had any political power and was usually at the mercy of higher classes, thus their rioting to stop changes to their homes/lands/etc. is still a hope for something "better" than what they had before."

[Mao]

Originally posted by DaShi


For the countryside it's hard to say it is better than before. In the past, they had their own land and lived their own lives. Their aspirations were that of farm folk. That doesn't mean that they need big screen TVs or cars to be happy. They have their own definition.

True, and that definition has changed even now. Now, part of that definition is to have a bicycle/scooter, indoor plumbling, etc. (not necessarily the definition of happiness, but if you ask whether it is better to have it or not to have it, few would say that it is better not to have it) However, this view of an idyllic past is pretty misleading. There were also bandits, famines, heavy taxes, etc. Their lands were often also taken away from them as well, although not from a centralized authority as it is now necessarily. I have no idea where this image comes from, but it's not really true. You really believe that in the past the peasantry could just live their own lives and be happy about it?

Now things are better than during the wars, where marauding Japanese and Chinese soldiers would take over the villages and torment the locals. But war is always a worse time. What you have to look at is it better than before the wars. For most countryside villages, I don't think it's that much different, except for the rise in pollution and loss of land to companies and industries.

Exactly how widespread do you think this problem is? The VAST majority of peasants haven't experienced this, and probably won't in the future. There have been riots, and the noisy hinge gets the grease. If we're trying to analyze this so that it's worth anything, we must look at the averages aggragates, right? And, I strongly disagree that life isn't that much different in most villages. Especially in villages in the east, you were in Hangzhou, did you ever go out to the villages? They have houses now, made sturdier than ever before, scooters, televisions, and no longer pay taxes, among a vast array of other things. How you could contend that that life's not better is beyond me. Now, you can accuse me of transplanting my values on "them," but to that I would respond that I have spoken to peasants myself (and since you don't trust anything the CCP puts out, this might be one the only things you believe) and read on the development of the peasantry via academic sources, and most believe that life is better now. How you argue otherwise, really is beyond me.

This is what the riots have been about. Those that seek a different life from farm life,

I contended that life as a peasant is better now than it ever has been in the history of China. Your point here doesn't contradict mine and I agree with it. The disparity between rich and poor in China is an ever-growing problem. This, in conjunction with so many undocumented workers, will probably be the source of the greatest social tension in the near future.

or lost their opportunity at such a life, have moved to the cities.

I would argue that most of this migrant population could live as peasants still, and that only a small percentage have "lost" the opportunity. Most see that they can earn more in the cities, so they move. They can live as peasants, better than their forefathers dreamed, but they want something better, perfectly reasonable in my book.

There is where they will protest for better conditions in already overpopulated urban areas.

Agreed.

Since you don't describe what they had before and what they want to be better than it was,

Do you really want me to try to list every aspect that a peasant's life is better now than it was before? Jesus, for starters (and this list is highly abridged):

More mobility (via modern machines to bring their goods around/move around themselves)
Television
Housing
NO TAXES
No more famines
elected village leaders

I don't understand this statement at all: "The Chinese peasantry very rarely had any political power and was usually at the mercy of higher classes, thus their rioting to stop changes to their homes/lands/etc. is still a hope for something "better" than what they had before."

I'm not too sure what you don't understand. As I said, this taking lands away from peasants isn't particularly new. What may be new is that it's done in a more systematic fashion and a lot of land is being taken away in one area, so they can organize and group together. Before, it'd be plots here and plots there, by local leadership/locals who had power. This is in response to your harping on the whole "government is taking lands away from peasants" like it's a new thing. They were at the mercy of others taking away land before, and now they want something *better* than that, so they're not at that mercy anymore. Make sense?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Mao


True, and that definition has changed even now. Now, part of that definition is to have a bicycle/scooter, indoor plumbling, etc. (not necessarily the definition of happiness, but if you ask whether it is better to have it or not to have it, few would say that it is better not to have it) However, this view of an idyllic past is pretty misleading. There were also bandits, famines, heavy taxes, etc. Their lands were often also taken away from them as well, although not from a centralized authority as it is now necessarily. I have no idea where this image comes from, but it's not really true. You really believe that in the past the peasantry could just live their own lives and be happy about it?

Exactly how widespread do you think this problem is? The VAST majority of peasants haven't experienced this, and probably won't in the future. There have been riots, and the noisy hinge gets the grease. If we're trying to analyze this so that it's worth anything, we must look at the averages aggragates, right? And, I strongly disagree that life isn't that much different in most villages. Especially in villages in the east, you were in Hangzhou, did you ever go out to the villages? They have houses now, made sturdier than ever before, scooters, televisions, and no longer pay taxes, among a vast array of other things. How you could contend that that life's not better is beyond me. Now, you can accuse me of transplanting my values on "them," but to that I would respond that I have spoken to peasants myself (and since you don't trust anything the CCP puts out, this might be one the only things you believe) and read on the development of the peasantry via academic sources, and most believe that life is better now. How you argue otherwise, really is beyond me.

I contended that life as a peasant is better now than it ever has been in the history of China. Your point here doesn't contradict mine and I agree with it. The disparity between rich and poor in China is an ever-growing problem. This, in conjunction with so many undocumented workers, will probably be the source of the greatest social tension in the near future.

Yes, you contend that, because you've taken one group who has been compensated for their losses and are using them to represent the conditions of all the peasants in China. Yet these people don't protest because they have been placated. I would argue that they've sold out their future for better homes and television, and are living in future ghettos that will also create more problems in the future. However, they are not what this is about. This is about the people who are protesting, specifically those in the countryside.

I'll concede that life for farmers wasn't always so great in the past. However, it is difficult for me to support your first argument that the protests of the countryside farmers are only about getting a better life. Unless I can see examples of protests that were about this and not about the building of a new factory or something similar. If you can provide them, then I'll be able to see you point more clearly. And perhaps, given the shear number of protests, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that among them are protests simply for better conditions in the countryside in response to the growth of China.

I would argue that most of this migrant population could live as peasants still, and that only a small percentage have "lost" the opportunity. Most see that they can earn more in the cities, so they move. They can live as peasants, better than their forefathers dreamed, but they want something better, perfectly reasonable in my book.

How could you not notice the contruction workers who have been forced to abandon their families for a job where they are fortunateif they are paid? Did you not see the poor children wandering the streets during school hours or working in their family restaurants? How about the endless lines of beggars, some with self-mutilations? Or worse the children beggars? Their injuries are not always an accident nor are those their parents that they run back to after you give them some money. I saw this regularly in Hangzhou. Do you really believe that this is better than their forfathers dreamed? They move to the cities in hopes of a better life only to find it not there. So they meek out an eager existance. The luckiest ones end up in factories that perhaps in the future will have better conditions for them. For now it's better than lying in a ditch. These are the people who are left behind.

Do you really want me to try to list every aspect that a peasant's life is better now than it was before? Jesus, for starters (and this list is highly abridged):

More mobility (via modern machines to bring their goods around/move around themselves)
Television
Housing
NO TAXES
No more famines
elected village leaders

Yes, most these are what is offered only to compensated farmers.

Now more mobility doesn't necessarily mean a better condition. The farmers of the American Dust Bowl had mobility to seek harsh and cruel work elsewhere. Their lifes weren't better for it. Like the Chinese, many of them lost their land to greedy corporations or banks. More mobility is better here in that it gives people who are put in bad conditions to roll the wheel somewhere else.

As for no taxes. Farmers still pay local taxes and fees. And compensated farmers don't make any money to be taxed. And the homeless and migrant workers don't make enough to be taxed.

I'm not too sure what you don't understand. As I said, this taking lands away from peasants isn't particularly new. What may be new is that it's done in a more systematic fashion and a lot of land is being taken away in one area, so they can organize and group together. Before, it'd be plots here and plots there, by local leadership/locals who had power. This is in response to your harping on the whole "government is taking lands away from peasants" like it's a new thing. They were at the mercy of others taking away land before, and now they want something *better* than that, so they're not at that mercy anymore. Make sense?

Yes, and in the past they may have lost the land but were still able to work on it. Fair, no. But at least they had a job and weren't displaced in society. They weren't forced to leave. This direct and immediate consequence leads most to migrate and some to protest if they can gather enough support. Perhaps if it was the central government who was directly taking the land, they would be compensated. I'll give it that much credit, even if it does lead to future problems. The companies offer little to nothing ever increasing this "lost" population who are coming to cities in hordes looking for a new life to replace the ones that they lost. But I understand where you're are coming from on what they want better.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Asher

He looks like he could use a little time in detox.