The Innate Violence of the “Chinese” way of Political Thought.

Zhong Guo Middle Kingdom,

In new year someone I knew started talking about he did not like people who want democracy in Hong Kong, and those who disagree with the communist government because they caused a weaker country and was causing dissension within society. Which is a standard anti-democratic line of reasoning throughout Chinese society.

I asked him how did he know those in power were always right, and their’s was the best way? What gave them the responsibility to dictate the "ideals" we all have to follow? Did he not think discussion could lead others to different points of view which would allow for maybe even better ways to do things.

He said, "If there was a house and there were six people, one would become the natural leader and the others would follow. It’s just nature. It’s is how things are."

I replied, "But what if in the house there were two people with such leadership qualities but they have  opposing view points? Then what happens."

"It depends on who is a better leader and who follows them."

"What if they each have two followers? It’s an equal competition?"

"Well it would be fine until there was somebody outside. Say another house with six people, and then the group must band together to fight the others, otherwise they would all die."

"But what if the two people have different ways to approach the problem? Say one person believes in fighting a war and the other believes in negotiating a peaceful outcome."

"Well one of them will have to win. Say for example if I was the leader I would try and convince the other person to join my side."

"What if they don’t?"

"Then I will for the sake of peace and survival, I would give up the power and say to my two followers  to back the other leader because other wise we would all die."

"What if you think the other person is completely wrong, that if you follow him or her you feel that the whole group will die."

"In that case, I will have to kill the other leader."

"But what if you’re wrong?"

"But if I believe in something so completely, then I would use violence for the sake of everyone."

"Okay, what if then you’re the person who believes in negotiation? If you don’t want to use a violent way of dealing with the situation."

"I would still have to kill the other leader for the sake of everyone especially because the other person will kill me first. It really depends on who acts first."

"So in that case, whoever and whenever there is a situation, the person who believes in violence and aggressiveness will always win. That each situation will end up in violence."

"That is the way it is of the world. Is it not. All through history."

"Well, Chinese history."

"That’s what we are talking about right now."

"The way you are talking means the country will always be in a potential state of danger of war, that there can be no stability because when ever there are different ways of thinking appear, the only way to win is to take power by force."

"There is no other way. Can’t you see that?"

"Not really."

"Yes it is."

"Did it ever occur to you that it’s possible to try and convince your opposition’s two followers to believe in what you want to believe in first? If that is the case and even one of them were on your side, then it’s completely possible that there is no bloodshed and a decision is made. And expect your competitor to do the same. Then you can let the majority, and the people choose and you can give the power to them."

"People don’t always know what’s best for them."

"Leader’s don’t always know what’s best either and moreover they don’t always have the majority of people’s best interest in mind. They have their own small group’s best interest in mind."

"But that takes too long."

"But acting quickly can cause a bad decision to be made."

"Yes, but you have another house of six people ready to attack."

"What if that the other house with the six people have to wait for there to be a consensus as well? People in general do not want to die, and do not want to send their own people to die either. So you  have two groups of people who cannot and will not go to war with each other because their leaders have to listen to the majority."

"That doesn’t happen."

"Yes, it does. It happens every day. That’s the process of democratic countries."

"But there is still wars all the time."

"With non-elected countries, or a democracy vs a dictatorship but never two democracies at once."

"That’s not true."

"Really it is. There has never been two democratically elected government going to war with each other. You can look it up."

"But someone needs to take charge and be in power."

"Yes, it’s called the individual. The reason those who are pro-communist government feel that we must be all in agreement, and cannot allow dissent and discourse is because the way the system is set up discussion can only lead to violence and chaos. While if the system is different, different opinions is not a threat. Which is why China spends so much time trying to shut out any kind of ideas that don’t tow the line and why democratic countries can have freedom of expression."

"You really don’t understand the "Chinese" way of thinking."

"No, I know exactly what it means, and how it is. It just happens that I disagree. I personally don’t think that it works for it leads to violence. There are other ways to do things that’s available and its proven. Don’t you think this line of reasoning is valid?"

"Of, course I believe that other people should be allowed to have their own opinions."

"But then it will lead to dissension, which is what you don’t like. See, instead of threatening you, I am simply trying to convince you to see things a different way and be on my side, and in a life or death situation, if the stakes were high enough, your first reaction is to kill me if I do not agree, then you would have to kill or jail every other person that agrees with me to keep them quiet. That would lead to arrests and disturbance on every level of society. That’s that last thing that would create the stability which you claim to want."