Sunday, August 31, 2014

The Peoples Daily vs. the New York Times

The Peoples Daily vs. the New York Times
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 1, 2014


Summary: Human society should not be limited to only one way of doing things. Single, stagnant models are unsustainable. Advocates of the Chinese Model and the American Model should reflect upon each other's strength and weaknesses. They should attempt to integrate the two, and adopt what is right while rejecting whatever is wrong. They should consider local conditions. It may be that human society should seek a balance between democracy and authoritarianism, freedom and discipline, and openness and control.

Full Text Below:

The People's Daily recently mocked the U.S. railway system in a long article entitled, "The United States' Dream of a High-Speed Rail System Has Become the World's Joke." The New York Times promptly lashed back, criticizing the Mainland HSR for waste and corruption.

The People's Daily article provided examples. A scheduled six or seven hour trip from Washington to Boston, took 13 hours merely because it rained. Obama's dream of a high-speed rail system remains stalled, and has made absolutely no progress. The article concluded that the American system has problems. Divided government and partisan bickering have made the high-speed rail project a victim. Both Xinhua and Huanqiu have reprinted the article in its entirety.

The New York Times responded promptly to the People's Daily with an article entitled, "China Touts Itself as Winner in High-Speed Rail Stakes." The article claimed that low capital cost was the reason for the success of the Mainland's high-speed rail system. It ridiculed the Mainland, saying, "... the rapid development of high-speed rail in China, often with lax oversight, has not been without problems, including corruption, cost overruns and deadly accidents." The article also pointed out that former Minister of Railways Liu Zhijun was removed from office and sentenced to death for corruption, and only received a reprieve in 2011.

These two diametrically opposed articles reflect the rise of China in the 21st century, and the resurgence of a battle over political and economic models. This battle over models has been a major topic in contemporary social theory. During the industrial revolution and the advent of industrial capitalism, the British Model was considered the only way for a modern society to develop. The market economy and free trade were regarded as the proper economic model, and Great Britain's system of democracy and constitutionalism were regarded as the proper political model.

Prussia chose to use the power of the state to promote economic development, to create a unified country, and to promote a nationalist ideology. This has been referred to as the Prussian Model. Britain and Germany represented two models of Western capitalism. These came to be known as the Anglo-Saxon Model or Anglo-American Model, and the Rhineland Model. The core of the Anglo-American Model was the free market and free trade. The core of the Rhineland Model was state intervention and social welfare. What the Anglo-American Model and the Rhineland Model have in common is capitalism.

Capitalism led to strong competition. Communism constituted a major threat, Among these the most representative was the Soviet Model. The core of the Soviet Model is the planned economy and one-party dictatorship. The planned economy concentrated political power and economic resources. This enabled the Soviet economy to grow rapidly during its early stages of development. The swift revival of the Soviet Union after World War II relative to the slow growth of capitalism, led people to consider the Soviet Model as an alternative for human society. But the drawbacks of the Stalinist regime and the Soviet model gradually became apparent. Totalitarianism was brutal. The Soviet economy experienced problems with bureaucracy and inefficiency. By the Brezhnev era, the Soviet Union's technology and economy were stagnant. Social and cultural despotism resulted in a loss of vitality. The Soviet Model lacked the capacity for self-adjustment and self-renewal, and eventually collapsed.

The Chinese Model is the product of Communist camp self-introspection regarding the Soviet Model. Mao Zedong mobilized the masses and fought the bureaucracy. He proved that his approach was infeasible. Deng Xiaoping and his successors embraced economic liberalization to avoid stagnation and any loss of vitality. They embraced personal freedom, enabling people to pursue successs, money, and consumer goods. They adopted political centralization and social control to maintain overall stability while suppressing potential dissent.

The Deng Xiaoping path led to 30 years of rapid development. Growth was sometimes poor and social chaos often prevailed. During the Xi Jinping era, the Communist Party made earth-shaking changes. It promulgated the Chinese Dream and resolutely fought corruption. It alleviated grievances, greatly enhancing the legitimacy of Communist Party rule. The Chinese Communist Party often claims that it is a political party capable of endless self-renewal. Xi Jinping's reforms suggest this may be true.

Indian-born Singaporean Foreign Minister Kishore Mahbubani wrote a book entitled "The New Asian Hemisphere." Mahbubani's primary driver in the Asian hemisphere is China. In recent years US power has been on the wane. China has rapidly risen. Mahbubani's prophecy was clearly accurate. In recent years, a debate over the Chinese Model vs. the American Model has emerged. The main reason is that the American Model has sustained grievous injuries. Financial turmoil on Wall Street resulting from the greed of capitalism, led to global doubts. The War on Terror launched after 9/11 revealed the recrudescence of imperialism. It undermined the fundamental values of openness and human rights in the United States. The rays of light of the "American Dream" that reigned from the end of World War II to the Reagan and Clinton era, have dimmed.

The American Model is fading, highlighting the rise of the Chinese Model.

In fact, human society should not be limited to only one way of doing things. Single, stagnant models are unsustainable. Advocates of the Chinese Model and the American Model should reflect upon each other's strength and weaknesses. They should attempt to integrate the two, and adopt what is right while rejecting whatever is wrong. They should consider local conditions. It may be that human society should seek a balance between democracy and authoritarianism, freedom and discipline, and openness and control.

社論-評人民日報與紐時的針鋒相對
2014年09月01日 04:10
本報訊

人民日報日前以「美國高鐵夢成了世界笑話」為題,發表了一篇長文,嘲笑美國鐵路運輸系統,紐約時報立即針鋒相對,批評大陸高鐵的浪費與貪腐。

人民日報的文章舉例,從華府到波士頓原定6、7個小時的行程,卻因為一場雨用掉了13個小時,歐巴馬的高鐵夢卻動彈不得,毫無進展。文章總結是,美國體制出了問題,分裂的政府和政黨紛爭使高鐵計畫成為犧牲品。新華網和環球網都全文轉載了這篇文章。

紐約時報隨即發表「中國自稱是高鐵贏家,美國是笑話」,回應了人民日報。這篇文章認為,成本低廉是大陸高鐵建設成功的原因,並嘲諷「由於疏於監管,中國高鐵的飛速發展也出現了一些問題,包括腐敗、成本超限和死亡事故」。文章中並指出,前鐵道部長劉志軍就是因為貪腐問題,在2011年被免職並判死緩。

這兩篇針鋒相對的文章,反應了21世紀中國崛起後,「模式之爭」再度激化。模式之爭一直是現當代人類社會發展的一大課題,當人類社會進入產業革命、工業資本主義的時代,「英國模式」曾被認為是現代化必經之路,於是市場經濟、自由貿易被奉為圭臬,英國的民主制度、立憲政治也被視為政治的典範。

英國之後,普魯士選擇用國家的強大力量來帶動經濟發展,打造統一與完整的國家和民族主義的意識形態,這樣的道路曾被稱為「普魯士模式」。英國和德國各自代表了西方資本主義的兩種模式,後來被稱為「盎格魯撒克遜模式」或「英美模式」與「萊因模式」之爭。「英美模式」的核心是自由市場、自由貿易,「萊因模式」的核心則是國家干預、社會福利,「英美模式」與「萊因模式」的共同點是資本主義。

曾對資本主義展開強大競爭,造成重大威脅的是共產主義體制,其中的典型之一就是「蘇聯模式」。「蘇聯模式」的核心是計畫經濟與一黨專政。由於計畫經濟集中權力、集中資源,使得蘇聯經濟在發展初期,成長非常快速。戰後蘇聯迅速復興相對於資本主義成長緩慢,蘇聯模式一時之間被認為是人類社會的出路。但是,史達林體制或蘇聯模式的弊端也逐漸顯現,除了極權殘酷外,蘇聯經濟也出現效率問題、官僚問題,到了布里茲涅夫時代,蘇聯的科技與經濟都陷入停滯,社會文化也因為專制而失去活力,蘇聯模式並不具有自我調整、自我更新的能力,最後終於崩壞。

「中國模式」是共產主義陣營對蘇聯模式反省的產物,毛澤東是用動員群眾、鬥爭官僚的方式,已證明毫無可行之處。鄧小平及其後繼者,採「經濟開放」讓經濟避免陷入停滯和喪失活力、「生活自由」讓老百姓得以追逐成功、金錢與消費,「政治集權」及「社會管控」則維持了大局的穩定,也壓制了潛在的異議力量。

鄧小平道路經過30年的快速發展,成長動力有時而窮,社會亂象頻生。進入習近平時代,共產黨做了天翻地覆的改變,透過中國夢的宣揚和反腐敗的雷厲風行,紓解了民怨,大大提高了共產黨統治的合法性。中國共產黨人常說中共是一個有不斷自我更新能力的政黨,習近平進行的改革,或許可以成為例證。

新加坡印度裔的外交部長馬凱碩曾經撰寫了《亞半球崛起》一書,他所謂的亞半球其中主要的力量是指中國。這些年美國國勢衰退,中國迅速崛起,他的預示顯然有其精準之處。近年來,中美模式之爭已浮上檯面,主要原因是美國模式出現致命傷,一是華爾街金融風暴代表的貪婪資本主義,受到舉世質疑。二是911事件後展開的反恐戰爭,顯露了帝國主義的復辟,也斲傷了美國開放與人權的基本價值觀,從二次世界大戰後延續到雷根及柯林頓時代的「美國夢」光環,已經褪色。

「美國模式」的褪色,也正凸顯了「中國模式」的崛起。

其實,人類社會不可能只有一條出路,僵滯不變的單一模式也無法永續發展,中國的模式與美國的模式應該相互反省、融合,截長補短,因地制宜,人類社會或許能夠在民主與集權、自由與紀律、開放與管制之間找到最佳的均衡點。

No comments: